Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 24 Nov 2014, 20:29:48

Interesting video. You can see how carbon dioxide swirls and plumes around the planet. In summer months, plants are photosyntehsizing almost all of it, then in fall and winter the concentrations build up again.

So, this video says the there are higher concentrations of C02, each year.

Published on Nov 17, 2014
An ultra-high-resolution NASA computer model has given scientists a stunning new look at how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere travels around the globe.

Plumes of carbon dioxide in the simulation swirl and shift as winds disperse the greenhouse gas away from its sources. The simulation also illustrates differences in carbon dioxide levels in the northern and southern hemispheres and distinct swings in global carbon dioxide concentrations as the growth cycle of plants and trees changes with the seasons.

The carbon dioxide visualization was produced by a computer model called GEOS-5, created by scientists at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office.

The visualization is a product of a simulation called a “Nature Run.” The Nature Run ingests real data on atmospheric conditions and the emission of greenhouse gases and both natural and man-made particulates. The model is then left to run on its own and simulate the natural behavior of the Earth’s atmosphere. This Nature Run simulates January 2006 through December 2006.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 14:45:29

That is a cool vid, 6S. What do you make of it?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2

Unread postby Sixstrings » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 16:59:20

dohboi wrote:That is a cool vid, 6S. What do you make of it?


Well,

1) I'm surprised that c02 builds up so much in fall and winter, then spring summer comes and the c02 all goes away, that's interesting.

2) It helps to visualize c02 emissions -- you can see a spot in africa with some forest fires. And then there are those regions in Asia, Europe, and US, belching FAR more smoke.

I don't know, I guess apparently human emissions amount to non-stop forest fires for a hundred years? Which naturally would affect the climate? Am I on the right track there? :razz:

(I still don't like Al Gore though, and half of anything done about climate change is all a scam, look at who posted on this forum about his electric bill going up 37% now. Because of climate change policy that's left new england without enough power plants, and they don't diversify energy sources anymore either)

3) More NASA, less Al Gore. Would serve your cause better.

At least the nasa people sound objective to me and it's science and not a cult or religion. Here's another video from them, I'll watch it sometime:

NASA | Geoengineering and Climate Intervention: What We Need to Know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsKfD0-sFzA


4) I still worry about out of control runaway socialism climate change MITIGATION. For example, 73% of French thinks the government just uses climate change for an excuse to raise taxes. That's what I don't want to see here in the US, a bunch of regressive carbon taxes, and who knows what always being pushed onto you and you're not supposed to question it or oppose it, because "it's for climate change."
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sat 13 Jun 2015, 13:16:13

Plants may run out of time to grow under ongoing climate change
Jun 10, 2015
A key potential 'benefit' of global warming that has been considered is that plants at northern latitudes will thrive in a warmer world. However, this prevailing assumption ignores the fact that plants in the North will remain limited by solar radiation, curbing the positive effects of warming and additional CO2 availability. In addition, that same warming could surpass plant temperature tolerances in tropical areas around the world, and further be accompanied by drought.
"Those that think climate change will benefit plants need to see the light, literally and figuratively," says Camilo Mora, professor at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa's College of Social Sciences and lead author of the new study. "A narrow focus on the factors that influence plant growth has led to major underestimations of the potential impacts of climate change on plants, not only at higher latitudes but more severely in the tropics, exposing the world to dire consequences," he adds.
The new study shows that ongoing climate change will lead to overall declines in plant growing days by 2100 due to a mixture of warming, drought, and limited solar radiation.
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 Tanada » Sat 13 Jun 2015, 15:26:09

Keith_McClary wrote:Plants may run out of time to grow under ongoing climate change
Jun 10, 2015
A key potential 'benefit' of global warming that has been considered is that plants at northern latitudes will thrive in a warmer world. However, this prevailing assumption ignores the fact that plants in the North will remain limited by solar radiation, curbing the positive effects of warming and additional CO2 availability. In addition, that same warming could surpass plant temperature tolerances in tropical areas around the world, and further be accompanied by drought.
"Those that think climate change will benefit plants need to see the light, literally and figuratively," says Camilo Mora, professor at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa's College of Social Sciences and lead author of the new study. "A narrow focus on the factors that influence plant growth has led to major underestimations of the potential impacts of climate change on plants, not only at higher latitudes but more severely in the tropics, exposing the world to dire consequences," he adds.
The new study shows that ongoing climate change will lead to overall declines in plant growing days by 2100 due to a mixture of warming, drought, and limited solar radiation.


Eh, maybe? The problem is every square meter of the surface of the Earth gets the same number of hours of daylight over a 365.249 day year. The difference is all in the angle which causes some dimming of the solar intensity depending on latitude. Almost all of the land in the Northern Hemisphere lays between 70 degrees north and the equator. At 70 degrees north on the first day of summer the sun is 43 degrees above the southern horizon at noon. However at 70 degrees north the sun rises for 12 hours on March 21 and the day grows rapidly longer until May 21 when it stays above the horizon 24 hours a day until July 22. From then until September 22 the day grows shorter and reaches 12 hours of daylight on that date. If the year around temperature is above freezing as it was in the Miocene epoch at these CO2 levels then you have 180 days with at least 12 hours of sunlight per day at 70 degrees north and 60 of those days are continuous sunlight.

This is why the Alaska State Fair has some of the worlds largest vegetables every year. Fairbanks, Alaska is about 65 degrees north. They do not ever get 24 hours of full sun, but on the first day of summer they get 21 hours of sun and 3 hours of twilight with no real darkness ever setting in.

Not to be excessively optimistic but the tropical belt around the equator has a narrow strip of land through Africa and Asia/Pacifica. Will the increased growing of plant matter in Siberia/Alaska/Canada/Scandinavia in the North and in southern South America and Antarctica make up for its loss? I don't know, nobody does. On the other hand on a pure land area measurement the warmer world will have more plant friendly land than the current partially glaciated world does.

A third factor I don't think people are giving much credence too, desert plants in North America, Asia and Africa have all adapted to withstand much higher temperatures than those predicted for the Tropical belt even in the 10C average increase scenarios. They do not grow as much biomass as a tropical rainforest jungle, but they do grow and sequester some carbon. I don't want to see the Amazon a giant desert populated by Saguaro Cati, but if that is the only thing that can grow there that is what will be growing there.

The forth factor is the migration of the tropic belts both north and south from the equator. As our Earth is warming the pole side boundaries of the Tropics are expanding towards both ends of the Earth. This is displacing the southern edge of the arid zone/Sonora Desert of Mexico for example is creeping slowly northward and the southern edge of the rainforest zone in Australia is creeping slowly southward toward the Great Sandy Desert. Ultimately this means the Tropic zone will not actually disappear, there will be a very hot equatorial zone with a North Tropic belt on our side and a South Tropic Belt on the other side of the equator from myself.

Ultimately as long as the Earth retains the three cell weather system we will retain a belt of desert between the tropic zone and the temperate zone. However from my reading at some point the three cell system collapses into a single cell system and tropical moisture is carried much closer to the poles eliminating or greatly reducing the desert zones around the planet.
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 » Sun 14 Jun 2015, 13:18:01

Thanks for those reflections, T. Glad to see you're not offended by the (to me hilarious) title of this thread. :)

"Not to be excessively optimistic..." We couldn't have that! :lol: :lol:

You might find this article that Graeme linked to in the Runaway GW thread interesting support for some of your claims:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... ceDaily%29

But that's just for boreal peatlands, not for tundra.

And now to return to my role as Debby Downer :) :

"Will the increased growing of plant matter in Siberia/Alaska/Canada/Scandinavia in the North and in southern South America and Antarctica make up for its loss? I don't know, nobody does."

Actually, I think we do know, and the answer is quite clearly "No."

There is twice as much carbon in the permafrost alone than in the entire atmosphere, and more carbon than in all other living things on the planet combined.

And it is quite likely that a significant amount of that carbon will emerge in the form of methane, some 100 times more powerful as a ghg than CO2 on decadal time scales.

So growing a few more vegetables is not going to offset that degree of carbon input--we're talking levels of magnitude of difference between what may be sequestered (temporarily?) by some new plant growth and what almost certainly is going to come (already is) gushing out of the tundra, not to mention seabed clathrates, etc.

I do think that it's a good idea to get as clear a picture as possible of the probably positive and negative feedbacks coming into play here (I now have about 200 pages of links and notes on the subject). But it is even more important to keep in mind the scale of each. So far as I've seen, the positive (exacerbating) feedbacks are relatively massive and fast while the most of the negative (damping) feedbacks are relatively (orders of magnitude) smaller and slower.

One thing to keep in mind is that species generally do not exist in isolation but within ecosystems. As zones shift at faster and faster rates, different plants and animals will adjust and migrate at different rates. This process will slice and dice ecosystems, obliterating many of them. Many species will not make it through that transition. The (early) 'winnners' are likely to be the 'generalists' aka weeds.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 14 Jun 2015, 13:49:54

dohboi wrote:Thanks for those reflections, T. Glad to see you're not offended by the (to me hilarious) title of this thread. :)

"Not to be excessively optimistic..." We couldn't have that! :lol: :lol:

You might find this article that Graeme linked to in the Runaway GW thread interesting support for some of your claims:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... ceDaily%29

But that's just for boreal peatlands, not for tundra.

And now to return to my role as Debby Downer :) :

"Will the increased growing of plant matter in Siberia/Alaska/Canada/Scandinavia in the North and in southern South America and Antarctica make up for its loss? I don't know, nobody does."

Actually, I think we do know, and the answer is quite clearly "No."

There is twice as much carbon in the permafrost alone than in the entire atmosphere, and more carbon than in all other living things on the planet combined.

And it is quite likely that a significant amount of that carbon will emerge in the form of methane, some 100 times more powerful as a ghg than CO2 on decadal time scales.

So growing a few more vegetables is not going to offset that degree of carbon input--we're talking levels of magnitude of difference between what may be sequestered (temporarily?) by some new plant growth and what almost certainly is going to come (already is) gushing out of the tundra, not to mention seabed clathrates, etc.

I do think that it's a good idea to get as clear a picture as possible of the probably positive and negative feedbacks coming into play here (I now have about 200 pages of links and notes on the subject). But it is even more important to keep in mind the scale of each. So far as I've seen, the positive (exacerbating) feedbacks are relatively massive and fast while the most of the negative (damping) feedbacks are relatively (orders of magnitude) smaller and slower.

One thing to keep in mind is that species generally do not exist in isolation but within ecosystems. As zones shift at faster and faster rates, different plants and animals will adjust and migrate at different rates. This process will slice and dice ecosystems, obliterating many of them. Many species will not make it through that transition. The (early) 'winnners' are likely to be the 'generalists' aka weeds.



Interesting link dohboi! Unfortunately I don't think thawing and rotting of boreal peat lands are much of a threat, however I think mining and burning is. Peat is just one step below Lignite, and as higher grades of coal are played out I expect more Lignite and Peat to be used in its place. As the saying goes, if humans can light it on fire sooner or later we will burn if all up.
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 Tanada » Sun 14 Jun 2015, 14:35:15

dohboi wrote:Thanks for those reflections, T. Glad to see you're not offended by the (to me hilarious) title of this thread. :)

"Not to be excessively optimistic..." We couldn't have that! :lol: :lol:

You might find this article that Graeme linked to in the Runaway GW thread interesting support for some of your claims:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... ceDaily%29

But that's just for boreal peatlands, not for tundra.

And now to return to my role as Debby Downer :) :

"Will the increased growing of plant matter in Siberia/Alaska/Canada/Scandinavia in the North and in southern South America and Antarctica make up for its loss? I don't know, nobody does."

Actually, I think we do know, and the answer is quite clearly "No."

There is twice as much carbon in the permafrost alone than in the entire atmosphere, and more carbon than in all other living things on the planet combined.

And it is quite likely that a significant amount of that carbon will emerge in the form of methane, some 100 times more powerful as a ghg than CO2 on decadal time scales.

So growing a few more vegetables is not going to offset that degree of carbon input--we're talking levels of magnitude of difference between what may be sequestered (temporarily?) by some new plant growth and what almost certainly is going to come (already is) gushing out of the tundra, not to mention seabed clathrates, etc.

I do think that it's a good idea to get as clear a picture as possible of the probably positive and negative feedbacks coming into play here (I now have about 200 pages of links and notes on the subject). But it is even more important to keep in mind the scale of each. So far as I've seen, the positive (exacerbating) feedbacks are relatively massive and fast while the most of the negative (damping) feedbacks are relatively (orders of magnitude) smaller and slower.

One thing to keep in mind is that species generally do not exist in isolation but within ecosystems. As zones shift at faster and faster rates, different plants and animals will adjust and migrate at different rates. This process will slice and dice ecosystems, obliterating many of them. Many species will not make it through that transition. The (early) 'winnners' are likely to be the 'generalists' aka weeds.


Whether I succeed or not I try to look at every issue from a scientific point of view to sort out the hype and agenda driven pro/con elements.

I used to harbor a great hope that Humanity would pull back from the threshold without crossing tipping points. Now I just hope we manage to navigate the consequences of our choices relatively intact when we reach the bottom of the slope.
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 » Sun 14 Jun 2015, 16:28:03

"I think mining and burning is"

I agree. The point of the article was that, left to themselves, the boreal peatbogs are likely to serve as a negative feedback in a warming world, based on paleo-evidence. But as I mentioned in the runaway thread, I find it quite unlikely that humans will be willing to leave well enough alone. We have never run across an unexpected boon that we didn't squander and destroy, afaik.

T, yes, tipping points are the thing to watch for, as well as just the raw CO2 numbers which you follow so well (not to say "obsessing"! :lol: ). Right now, the permafrost is mostly melting around the edges. In a few more years, they will become a net source rather than a net sink of atmospheric carbon. At that point it is highly unlikely that anything will keep pretty much all of the stored carbon in those sources form getting into the atmosphere. The only question really is the timing.

There will continue to be some bio-sequestration in various places in various forms. There could be a lot more if humanity made it a top priority.

But whatever is such new sinks arise by themselves or with the help of humans, it is not likely to add up to the equivalent of the mass of carbon of all living things on the planet. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it seems to me that the burden of evidence is on those proposing that such an eventuality is even possible, not to mention probable.

Again, the scale of the possible carbon sinks is small relative to the scale of actual and possible sources.

What I'd like to get a better handle on is when the oceans are likely to stop or significantly slow their absorbing/dissolving of atmospheric CO2.

Hot ocean surfaces cannot absorb CO2 as easily as cold, and we are rapidly heating the oceans. That has been the biggest carbon 'sink' but at the cost of the most rapid acidification of the ocean since the evolution of complex life on the planet, iirc. And they just can't continue to absorb CO2 at the rate they have been for much longer, it seems to me.

But I don't have a clear picture of what the likely timescales are there.

(And just to be clear, I'm talking about carbon dissolved in the water itself as carbonic acid, not the huge methane clathrate monster, which is a whole other can of whoop @$$.)
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 » Mon 29 Jun 2015, 18:17:16

June 29, 2015
An insight into future ocean carbon uptake under different climate change scenarios
... All in all, the annual marine CO2 uptake rates have been able to more or less keep pace with the increase in atmospheric CO2 so far: The annual percentage of new human-caused CO2 emissions taken up by the oceans globally is rather constant.
However future projections with Earth system models, either fully fledged complex model systems or so called Earth system models of intermediate complexity, reveal that this may change once emissions of CO2 further accumulate in the atmosphere and climate change accelerates in the coming decades. A more sluggish ocean circulation in combination with a decrease of seawater buffering ability at high sea surface CO2 concentrations will induce a weakening of the ocean CO2 uptake efficiency. Exciting new results include the effect of increasing bacterial decomposition of organic matter in the ocean water column and the decrease of biogenic aerosol emissions to the atmosphere under rising temperatures. Both feedback effects will accelerate global warming.
...
Other results worth mentioning include the discovery that, in order to limit global warming, ocean acidification, ocean de-oxygenation, and land biomass loss, stronger CO2 emission reductions are necessary in comparison to what it would take to tackle global warming only. We also found that progressing ocean acidification is unequivocally affecting also the deep ocean with potential biodiversity loss especially among vulnerable deep-sea organisms. Finally, we provided evidence that combined stressors for marine ecosystems will become increasingly critical towards the coming decades, whereby the evolving hot spots can be estimated from models.
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 ROCKMAN » Tue 30 Jun 2015, 08:22:19

The Rockman is relieved to see that no one has become obsessed with this new thread. LOL.

That is all...carry on.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Tue 30 Jun 2015, 15:10:29

June 30, 2015
New study re-writes the rules of carbon analysis
Contrary to the findings of many previous life-cycle analyses, the study found that, when policy effects are accounted for, conserving the native forests of southeast New South Wales resulted in better climate outcomes than if they continued to be sustainably harvested.
...
"The simplest explanations for why conserving native forests reduces emissions is that, when these forests are harvested, only a small proportion of the biomass finds its way into long-lived wood products and burning wood does not generate much energy.
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 Keith_McClary » Tue 21 Jul 2015, 14:19:50

JULY 21, 2015
A Real and Ready Solution for Climate Change
by JOYCE NELSON
The U.S. Rodale Institute’s peer-reviewed study, Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change, is so hopeful and filled with common sense about the future that it’s a must-read for anyone needing some inspiration in these difficult times.

With regard to rising greenhouse gas emissions, their study states: “We suggest an obvious and immediately available solution – put the carbon back to work in the terrestrial carbon ‘sinks’ that are literally right beneath our feet. Excess carbon in the atmosphere is surely toxic to life, but we are, after all, carbon-based life forms, and returning stable carbon to the soil can support ecological abundance.” [1]

Through using organic farming practices that maximize soil’s carbon-fixing capacities, not only can climate change be reversed, but soil itself can be restored. The study states: “Simply put, recent data from farming systems and pasture trials around the globe show that we could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices.”
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 Keith_McClary » Thu 06 Aug 2015, 00:37:29

As temperatures rise, some of the organic carbon stored in Arctic permafrost meets an unexpected fate—burial at sea. As many as 2.2 million metric tons of organic carbon per year are swept along by a single river system into Arctic Ocean sediment, according to a new study an international team of researchers published today in Nature. This process locks away carbon dioxide (CO2) - a greenhouse gas - and helps stabilize the earth's CO2 levels over time, and it may help scientists better predict how the natural carbon cycle will interplay with the surge of CO2 emissions due to human activities.
...
"That carbon is not returning to the atmosphere for a long time," says Robert Hilton, associate professor at Durham University who worked on the study. "Over geological timescales, warming conditions lead to the sequestration of that carbon at sea."
This sequestration likely kept naturally-occurring CO2 levels in check. But the researchers emphasize that this natural process is 10 to 20 times too slow to keep pace with CO2 emissions from human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels.
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-fate-carbo ... soils.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 Keith_McClary » Wed 30 Sep 2015, 12:58:08

The $20M NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE will challenge the world to reimagine what we can do with CO2 emissions by incentivizing and accelerating the development of technologies that convert CO2 into valuable products. These technologies have the potential to transform how the world approaches CO2 mitigation, and reduce the cost of managing CO2.

Competition Overview

The competition will have two tracks – one focused on testing technologies at a coal power plant and one focused on testing technologies at a natural gas power plant. Each track will operate as a separate competition on the same timeline.

Teams will compete in three rounds for a total prize purse of $20 million:

Round 1: Teams will choose a track and submit technical and business information about their technology, process, potential products, and how they plan to achieve the technical requirements and goals of the competition. Teams will be assessed and ranked based on these submissions. In each track, up to 15 teams will move onto Round 2.
Round 2: Teams will demonstrate technologies in a controlled environment (such as a laboratory), using a simulated power plant flue gas stream. Teams must meet minimum requirements and will be scored on how much CO2 they convert and the net value of their products. In each track, up to 5 teams will move onto Round 3 and share a $2.5 million milestone purse.
Round 3: Teams will demonstrate technologies under real world conditions, at a larger scale. Teams will have access to two test centers adjacent to existing power plants, and will prove their technologies using actual power plant flue gas. Teams must meet minimum requirements and will be scored on how much CO2 they convert and the net value of their products. In each track, the winner will be awarded a $7.5 million grand prize.
Impact

The Carbon XPRIZE seeks to inspire the brightest minds around the world to tackle a significant challenge and help solve climate change.
http://carbon.xprize.org/about/overview

What can you do with CO2 without using energy? Other than solar (feeding CO2 to trees or algae), what energy source is there?

On the X-Prize homepage you can vote:
X.png

They should add the Philosopher's stone.
:o
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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 Keith_McClary » Mon 26 Oct 2015, 19:59:43

Elevated CO2 Levels Directly Affect Human Cognition, New Harvard Study Shows
BY JOE ROMM OCT 26, 2015
(CO2) has a direct and negative impact on human cognition and decision-making. These impacts have been observed at CO2 levels that most Americans — and their children — are routinely exposed to today inside classrooms, offices, homes, planes, and cars.
...
measured outdoor CO2 levels in major cities from Phoenix to Rome can be many tens of ppm higher — up to 100 ppm or more — than the global average. That’s because CO2 “domes” form over many cities primarily due to CO2 emissions from traffic and local weather conditions.
The outdoor CO2 level is the baseline for indoor levels. In buildings — the places where most people work and live — CO2 concentrations are considerably higher than outdoors. CO2 levels indoors that are 200 ppm to 400 ppm higher than outdoors are commonplace
...
“In surveys of elementary school classrooms in California and Texas, average CO2 concentrations were above 1,000 ppm, a substantial proportion exceeded 2,000 ppm, and in 21% of Texas classrooms peak CO2 concentration exceeded 3,000 ppm.”

Image
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 Plantagenet » Mon 26 Oct 2015, 22:52:19

Keith_McClary wrote:In buildings — the places where most people work and live — CO2 concentrations are considerably higher than outdoors. CO2 levels indoors that are 200 ppm to 400 ppm higher than outdoors are commonplace
...
“In surveys of elementary school classrooms in California and Texas, average CO2 concentrations were above 1,000 ppm, a substantial proportion exceeded 2,000 ppm, and in 21% of Texas classrooms peak CO2 concentration exceeded 3,000 ppm.”

Image
[/quote]

WOW! Can you imagine how high the CO2 must get in the completely air-sealed and bomb-proofed rooms in the White House?

Perhaps this explains the poor cognition, indecisiveness and limited decision making abilities exhibited by the most recent White House occupants?

Image
Excess CO2 buildups in sealed rooms?? Is that what has been causing the problems??
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26607
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Tue 27 Oct 2015, 01:01:11


monitoring CO2 levels is relatively cheap and easy

$129 cheap:
Image
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 Keith_McClary » Mon 07 Dec 2015, 13:38:32

Satellite observations show global plant growth is not keeping up with CO2 emissions
December 7, 2015
global plant growth has indeed increased over the past 30 years, but not as much as expected given the change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Comparing their findings with results of widely used on-the-ground measurements and the best available models of plant responses to increasing CO2, Smith and colleagues concluded that current model estimates of plants' ability to offset growing greenhouse gas emissions may be unrealistically optimistic.
...
The authors identify two important factors that could be driving the divergence between satellite-based results and model-based results: availability of water and availability of nutrients. Satellite data indicate that warmer climate conditions resulting from rising atmospheric CO2 may be increasing plant water stress, counteracting any positive effect of CO2. Additionally, limited availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in the environment could also limit the ability of plants to soak up additional CO2
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 dissident » Mon 07 Dec 2015, 15:42:49

The OP is correct and the vegetables counter-example is off the mark. Plant genetics are not going to change on any timescale relevant to the discussion. Some specially bred garden varieties are not going to matter globally in terms of CO2 sink. Most plants will not just respond to temperature and CO2, the amount of light is a critical limiter. And there is less light as one moves poleward since more and more of it is scattered by the atmosphere (not just clouds) as the angle of incidence becomes more and more tangential. The appearance of winter and its progressive intensification as one moves to the poles is real. There is not six months of summer poleward of 70. There is about one month of summer and over eight months of solid winter (late September through May in the Canadian far north).

Image
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests