 |
|
Message boards : climateprediction.net Science : Is the human CO2 production relevant?
Message board moderation
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Send message Joined: 17 Jan 05 Posts: 4 Credit: 920,060 RAC: 0 |
Hi all! In a discussion, a friend of mine mentioned that the human contribution to the global CO2 emission is only very faint. I googled for his main argument and found out that underground coal fires are emitting huge amounts of CO2 - without filters or catalytic converters: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2003/0213fire.shtml If the human contribution to the global CO2 emission is really so faint, the Kyoto protocol and all other attempts of CO2 reduction would be ridiculous. Thus my question: Can anyone support or disprove it? Are there reliable quantifications? proellt |
|
Send message Joined: 16 Oct 04 Posts: 692 Credit: 277,679 RAC: 0 |
Human contribution to the global CO2 emission is very small compared to natural production and absorbtion of CO2. However, the CO2 has from natural processes been more or less in balance for a very long time before man came along and started burning fossil fuels. There are large underground fires but if that is natural it may be about in balance with carbon being subducted. To keep the CO2 more or less in balance for a very long time, it is reasonable to presume there should be natural control mechanism. So how strong are these natural control mechanisms and is the carbon that we are burning overwhelming them? We are burning somewhere between 7 billion to 10 billion tons of carbon each year. Only about 3 or 4 billion tons of extra carbon are appearing in the atmosphere each year. Pre industrial CO2 levels were about 280 ppm and this has risen to 380 ppm. We have burnt a lot more carbon than accounts for the increase from 280 to 380 ppm so it is reasonable to say mankind is responsible for all of the increase in carbon in the atmosphere. There is no doubt about CO2 being much higher than in the past and that mankind is causing this. Will those natural control mechanisms get stronger in future? There is in fact good evidence to suggest that land may convert from a carbon sink to a carbon source in future thereby weakening those natural control mechanisms<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524864.400">see new scientist</a> Visit BOINC WIKI for help And join BOINC Synergy for all the news in one place. |
|
Send message Joined: 10 Oct 04 Posts: 223 Credit: 4,664 RAC: 0 |
Hi Proellt I think you will have to tell your friend that if it was just a question of CO2 and methane produced directly from the food we eat, via respiration and digestion, he would probably be right. However, as Crandles says, it's what we DO that creates the enormous CO2 emissions. Plus, at least some of the underground peat and coal fires were probably started by humans. And even our western diet containing lots of animal protein isn't guilt-free or CO2/methane-free, because the number of animals we eat couldn't be sustained without animal-feed produced using fertilizers that use fossil fuel. It's difficult to think of any part of the CO2 increase that has NOT been caused by humans. Ideas, anyone? __________________________________________________ |
|
Send message Joined: 17 Jan 05 Posts: 4 Credit: 920,060 RAC: 0 |
> Human contribution to the global CO2 emission is very small compared to > natural production and absorbtion of CO2. However, the CO2 has from natural > processes been more or less in balance for a very long time before man came > along and started burning fossil fuels. Okay, it seems balanced, or at least oscillating in the graph I found (Germany, but understandable world wide): http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2-Dateien/petit.gif But HOW long was it 'balanced'? This graph goes back 400,000 years only. From the same source, there is a 600 million years overview: http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2-Dateien/paleo4.gif Nothing seems 'balanced' in *this* time scale. In my opinion, most natural processes are not exactly an equilibrum. They change all the time - sometimes very slowly. For millions of years, dinosaurs and other animals died, producing coal and oil, maybe decreasing the CO2 concentration. Now, "they" come back. No equilibrum. Maybe an oscillation. Maybe a chaotic circle of carbon exchange between the gaseous and the solid part of the planet. > There are large underground fires but > if that is natural it may be about in balance with carbon being subducted. Yes, it MAY be. But it may also not. > We are burning somewhere between 7 billion to 10 billion tons of carbon > each year. Only about 3 or 4 billion tons of extra carbon are appearing in the > atmosphere each year. Pre industrial CO2 levels were about 280 ppm and this > has risen to 380 ppm. We have burnt a lot more carbon than accounts for the > increase from 280 to 380 ppm so it is reasonable to say mankind is responsible > for all of the increase in carbon in the atmosphere. So, the burning of our 7-10 billion tons of carbon is not the biggest part of CO2 emission, but it is "the last straw that breaks the camel's back"? The 600 million years graph I mentioned above gives a different picture: Temperature and CO2 levels are at their minimum. It is quite reasonable that the planet will increase both levels - with or without human interference. My question here: Is this graph based on robust data? Does anyone have different CO2 or temperature graphs of those times? > Will those natural control mechanisms get stronger in future? There is in fact > good evidence to suggest that land may convert from a carbon sink to a carbon > source in future thereby weakening those natural control mechanisms<a> href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524864.400">see > new scientist</a> Thanks for the link! Thomas |
|
Send message Joined: 16 Oct 04 Posts: 692 Credit: 277,679 RAC: 0 |
> > Human contribution to the global CO2 emission is very small compared to > > natural production and absorbtion of CO2. However, the CO2 has from > natural > > processes been more or less in balance for a very long time before man > came > > along and started burning fossil fuels. > > Okay, it seems balanced, or at least oscillating in the graph I found > (Germany, but understandable world wide): > http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2-Dateien/petit.gif > > But HOW long was it 'balanced'? This graph goes back 400,000 years only. From > the same source, there is a 600 million years overview: > http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2-Dateien/paleo4.gif > Nothing seems 'balanced' in *this* time scale. > > In my opinion, most natural processes are not exactly an equilibrum. They > change all the time - sometimes very slowly. For millions of years, dinosaurs > and other animals died, producing coal and oil, maybe decreasing the CO2 > concentration. Now, "they" come back. No equilibrum. Maybe an oscillation. > Maybe a chaotic circle of carbon exchange between the gaseous and the solid > part of the planet. > Sorry I was talking about the relative stability we have had for the last 8000 years. If you go back further then very different climates existed and this should make us more concerned that climate can change from one system to another. It is the last 1000 years that is most relevant to what is happening today together with the data for this period being better than for older periods. If there is a change in a graph with a 400,000 year or 6 million year time scale, then the changes shown are only happening slowly. (There may have been fast changes but they are unlikely to be visible due to the scale.) It is the rate of change in the last 30 year to 150 years that marks it out as anomalous. See <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7#figures">Real climate Temperature variations and the hockey stick</a> > > There are large underground fires but > > if that is natural it may be about in balance with carbon being > subducted. > > Yes, it MAY be. But it may also not. True. I would suggest this is a slow change and we are really interested in fast rates of change. > > > We are burning somewhere between 7 billion to 10 billion tons of carbon > > each year. Only about 3 or 4 billion tons of extra carbon are appearing > in the > > atmosphere each year. Pre industrial CO2 levels were about 280 ppm and > this > > has risen to 380 ppm. We have burnt a lot more carbon than accounts for > the > > increase from 280 to 380 ppm so it is reasonable to say mankind is > responsible > > for all of the increase in carbon in the atmosphere. > > So, the burning of our 7-10 billion tons of carbon is not the biggest part of > CO2 emission, but it is "the last straw that breaks the camel's back"? > You can call it the last staw if you want, I think it is somewhat more substantial than that. > The 600 million years graph I mentioned above gives a different picture: > Temperature and CO2 levels are at their minimum. It is quite reasonable that > the planet will increase both levels - with or without human interference. > My question here: Is this graph based on robust data? Does anyone have > different CO2 or temperature graphs of those times? > > > Will those natural control mechanisms get stronger in future? There is in > fact > > good evidence to suggest that land may convert from a carbon sink to a > carbon > > source in future thereby weakening those natural control mechanisms<a> > href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524864.400">see > > new scientist</a> > > Thanks for the link! > > > Thomas > Hope this helps Visit BOINC WIKI for help And join BOINC Synergy for all the news in one place. |
 old_user1742Send message Joined: 26 Aug 04 Posts: 100 Credit: 1,191,715 RAC: 0 |
As regards to the burning coal seams, they are a significant but not dominant source of CO2. From the AAAS press release you first linked to "These ultra-hot fires can occur naturally — the right combination of sunlight and oxygen can cause spontaneous combustion — but they are frequently caused by humans." - so most of this CO2 release should be counted as anthropogenic ("human contribution"). ____________________________<br> <a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>. |
|
Send message Joined: 21 Mar 05 Posts: 33 Credit: 63,483 RAC: 0 |
You forgot about volcanic eruptions :) They cause more ozone depletion with one eruption than 10 billion cans of underarm deodorant :) Seriously though, I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Industrialized nations are living a VERY unnatural existence - the average person doesn't even TRY to cut back on fossil fuel burning (Solar and Wind power, anyone? Why aren't hybrid cars cheaper?) On the other hand, it is arrogant of man to think he can destroy the earth. God designed the earth better than that. However, He might allow the imminent weather- and climate-induced disasters to be the punishment of our arrogant "we will call the shots" mentality... As in, "No more praying for rain for us! We have cloud seeding!" Matthew <img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=2118&prj=4"> |
|
Send message Joined: 27 Jan 05 Posts: 74 Credit: 1,047,809 RAC: 0 |
Matthew said: > However, He might allow the imminent weather- and climate-induced disasters to > be the punishment of our arrogant "we will call the shots" mentality... As in, > "No more praying for rain for us! We have cloud seeding!" > > Matthew Matt: You may have lit on one component of the answer to this quandary; Are you watching NOAA? I recently contacted csc@csc.noaa.gov Re This: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/145724.shtml?5day My message: "Hello: Excellent presentation. Very impressuive work. Canadians may recognize some of the early characterisitics of 2005 DENNIS. Does this one appear to have any resemblance to 1954 HAZEL which put on such a great show 50 years ago? e.g. early strength, tenacity and track, AND DEVASTATION? John Hopkinson Elmsdale NS" ( as indicatred below, I expect to receive an answer soon, which could indicate that DENNIS, et sequel, could easily make 1954 HAZEL look like a summer breeze.) Quote: Hello, Thank you for your email to the NOAA Coastal Services Center. Your inquiry/request has been routed to the appropriate person who will respond as soon as possible. Inquiries are normally answered within seven business days. Coastal Information Services/LIB Unquote My observations of current situations tracked by NOAA have been a very entertaining adjunct to CPDN. I have been trying (to no avail) to relate the visualizations of successful BOINC/CPDN models to the NOAA tracking. But the evidence is frightening. "There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see!" John Hopkinson |
 Send message Joined: 5 Aug 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 299,864 RAC: 0 |
>On the other hand, it is arrogant of man to think he can destroy the earth. >God designed the earth better than that. that's such an arrogantly American viewpoint (which I can recognize as I'm an arrogant American ;-). One needs just look at the rubbish floating in oceans & rivers, and the smog over cities (LA anyone?) to see that man can destroy the earth. Hell, in Thor Heyerdahl's last Kon-Tiki-ish trip in the 70's he said he noticed the whole ocean on his way was littered with "tarballs" from various oil spills, something he never saw on his original voyage. |
|
Ananas Send message Joined: 31 Oct 04 Posts: 336 Credit: 3,316,482 RAC: 0 |
Even if humans would not increase the total amount of CO2 by burning fossiles, they would encroach into the ballance. I have no idea how much (in %) it is but I guess a lot of CO2 has always been buffered in bio mass like plankton, bacteria, algae and higher plants. Killing this bio mass creates methane and CO2. Some species already die from a slight change in their chemical environment so the process speeds up. The additional CO2 from fossiles goes on top of that. We might not be able to destroy earth by doing so, there will probably always be some kinds of life somewhere, but doing a climate change of some hundred thousands of years within those few years of industrial age will sure be too much for most life forms - possibly including ourselves. The ability to adapt to changing conditions is limited, there are species that already live in regions with conditions that meet their limits, those will be the first to disappear (and this process already started). Fast changes in climate decrease the variety of species and it takes evolution a long time to create a new "set" of species that likes that new climate and chemical environment. Of course we might just change climate to a state we had some million years back, the earth might already have seen the climate we're about to create and some creatures will sure love the changes - but remember, there haven't been mammals back then. |
©2024 cpdn.org
