Sharp Rise In Co2 Levels

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi BFTP mate...

I think that you and I will have to agree to disagree??

Pete

Absolutely. However, what I'm really saying is that I can't see that our extra CO2 will have a eventual different outcome to the past. Yes the planet has warmed or GW as it is but I think it would still be warming anyway irrespective of our CO2 output/imput...as CO2 is CO2 is CO2 so why should there be a different outcome? Maybe we are speeding up the outcome that has occurred in the past? Maybe it all will be different this time? I just haven't found or heard an answer (yet) that tells me otherwise to satisfy my curiosity or dissuade me from my current thoughts. Oh and on pollution, no I am against pollutants and I do conserve and recycle...that's just good practice IMO.

kind regards

BFTP :lol:

Edited March 25, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Scribbler]

I think that one of the problems is that this time round there seems to be a natural cycle of warming (with naturally increasing CO2) but we’ve added to it all the other man-made pollutants.

Between our pollutants and the natural warming of the earth, things are now becoming critical and I think that the earth’s climate is getting off the beaten track.

No-one – not even Mother Nature knows what is going to happen in the future.

Much as I see the common sense of recycling and cutting back on pollutants of all kinds, things may just have gone too far and are out of control.

A million people might all do as they’re told – a billion probably won’t – and six billion certainly won’t all behave like good green minimal-pollutant recyclers. :lol:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

You miss the point. The Earth 'IS' overflowing. CO2 conc HAS risen by a third. THis isn't something that can be waved away. Indeed, were it not for thr fact the that sinks (the 'leaks') have managed to remove a good deal of our emissions CO2 would be far higher in Conc thasn it is.

Claiming the Earth 'will not keep warming' might be right, but IT IS NOT where the best science points.

Yes CO2 has risen by a third. We haven't pumped in a third. You have touched what I think is a very important point. CO2 has risen and dropped in the past, the planet has dealt with it. I accept GW but all down to AGW...no way. At some point and why, CO2 increases in the planet and the natural sinks cannot stop it from increasing, indeed the overall trend for CO2 over 18000 years is increase. The only time it drops is when an ice age locks it all up. We are emitting/adding approx 3% of the worlds CO2 yet the increase apparently is 33% and over how long? since we have been omitting it industrially?...now to me the sums do not add up. Why is it that OUR 3% seems to be doing all the damage. Yes it may be adding bit by bit but the increase is happening naturally IMO as it always has. Yes one may argue we are omitting 3% over what the planet can handle but that does not hold up because CO2 was on the rise anyway. CO2 we pump out is the SAME as CO2 naturally. Are we saying that if we omitted 0% CO2 that the planets CO2 levels would have remained constant and that there would have been no GW? I know what I think Food for thought at least

BFTP

[Scribbler]

Yes CO2 has risen by a third. Why is it that OUR 3% seems to be doing all the damage.

BFTP

I think that it's done the damage because we're adding to the CO2 at too fast a rate.

A gradual increase might be absorbed by natural processes but they can't handle our extreme rate of output.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I think that it's done the damage because we're adding to the CO2 at too fast a rate.

A gradual increase might be absorbed by natural processes but they can't handle our extreme rate of output.

Sorry Scribbler, that doesn't explain it for me. A natural increase is not absorbed that is the point...it still rises.

BFTP

[Scribbler]

Hi BFTP

It’s not just CO2, is it?

CO2 levels were quite a lot lower before the Industrial Revolution. Nature managed quite well then. Then we started adding some CO2 – and nature still coped ok.

But nowadays our output has increased at a rate and to the point that nature just can’t manage.

AND…..we’ve also added in a whole load of other pollutants and GW factors.

But I don’t think that the world’s CO2 would have stayed constant without out interference. There’ll always be natural ups and downs – many of them possibly as a result of cycles and causes that we’re still not aware of.

I guess that I’m simplifying things too much, but it just feels that way to me.

We (the world as a whole) were going along alright – until (as usual) we started to overdo things!

[Methuselah]

I would certainly agree that not all GW is anthropogenic; in fact I think that any such claim would be quite an absurd one to make?

That said, how does anyone KNOW that of the 33% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of industrialization, only 3% of that has got there as of result of that industrialization?

Apart from as-yet undiscovered undersea volcanoes or an undetected huge reduction in monsoon rainfall, has anyone come-up with a natural cause?

[Devonian]

Yes CO2 has risen by a third. We haven't pumped in a third. You have touched what I think is a very important point. CO2 has risen and dropped in the past, the planet has dealt with it. I accept GW but all down to AGW...no way. At some point and why, CO2 increases in the planet and the natural sinks cannot stop it from increasing, indeed the overall trend for CO2 over 18000 years is increase. The only time it drops is when an ice age locks it all up. We are emitting/adding approx 3% of the worlds CO2 yet the increase apparently is 33% and over how long? since we have been omitting it industrially?...now to me the sums do not add up. Why is it that OUR 3% seems to be doing all the damage. Yes it may be adding bit by bit but the increase is happening naturally IMO as it always has. Yes one may argue we are omitting 3% over what the planet can handle but that does not hold up because CO2 was on the rise anyway. CO2 we pump out is the SAME as CO2 naturally. Are we saying that if we omitted 0% CO2 that the planets CO2 levels would have remained constant and that there would have been no GW? I know what I think Food for thought at least

BFTP

I'm amazed howe people mix up the 3% and the 33%. I'll try again...

If the TOTAL amount of CO2 in circulation (the 'carbon cycle') is 100, then each year vast amount get both emitted and absorbed NATURALLY. However, there is, or was, pretty much a BALANCE between emission and absorbtion (there has to be! The amounts involved are so large that if sink or source stopped we'd either expire of CO2 poisoning or the CO2 vanish in years). Now, we are ADDING more CO2, a LOT more. Some of this the planet's CO2 sinks can absorb, but the sinks are clearly overwhealmed else the atmospheric conc of CO2 would not be changing. SO, CO2 rises in conc, now by 30 odd percent.

So, while of the CO2 IN THE CO2 CYCLE it's only a small amount, of the CO2 IN THE AIR it's a 33% increase.

[Scribbler]

So, while of the CO2 IN THE CO2 CYCLE it's only a small amount, of the CO2 IN THE AIR it's a 33% increase.

Yup! All that CO2 was sequestered in coal, oil, timber, etc, quite safe and sound and out of the way.

Now we've changed it's location and pumped it into the atmosphere.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I'm amazed howe people mix up the 3% and the 33%. I'll try again...

If the TOTAL amount of CO2 in circulation (the 'carbon cycle') is 100, then each year vast amount get both emitted and absorbed NATURALLY. However, there is, or was, pretty much a BALANCE between emission and absorbtion (there has to be! The amounts involved are so large that if sink or source stopped we'd either expire of CO2 poisoning or the CO2 vanish in years). Now, we are ADDING more CO2, a LOT more. Some of this the planet's CO2 sinks can absorb, but the sinks are clearly overwhealmed else the atmospheric conc of CO2 would not be changing. SO, CO2 rises in conc, now by 30 odd percent.

So, while of the CO2 IN THE CO2 CYCLE it's only a small amount, of the CO2 IN THE AIR it's a 33% increase.

Wake up Devonian It does not add up! We have been here before,,,re warming beyond! Our 3% Cannot add to 33 %....simple

BFTP

[Methuselah]

Wake up Devonian It does not add up! We have been here before,,,re warming beyond! Our 3% Cannot add to 33 %....simple

BFTP

Yes it can BFTP...As long as the input is of greater magnitude than the output, over sufficient time CO2 will continue to build...a 0.001% +ive bias would add-up to +33% atmospheric load, given enough time?

[Devonian]

Wake up Devonian It does not add up! We have been here before,,,re warming beyond! Our 3% Cannot add to 33 %....simple

BFTP

Oh dear.... Look, go over the carbon cycle, note the imbalance, and do the sums (and don't forget about time).

[trevw]

Wake up Devonian It does not add up! We have been here before,,,re warming beyond! Our 3% Cannot add to 33 %....simple

BFTP

I believe that it's actually fairly well accepted that not only is the entire atmospheric increase due to our CO2 production but that is only the tip of the (melting ) iceberg - we have emitted enough to pretty much double the atmospheric CO2 levels but the ocean has been sucking it up like a sponge.. something that can only go on for so long. The fact that the rate of CO2 increase has accelerated over the last few years is worrying as it could indicate that the oceans have 'had enough' or that the land is turning into a net generator of CO2 - either or both of which could herald an acceleration of the warming..

The extra CO2 we have emitted is warming the atmosphere (an indisputable physical fact) - the only actual 'question' is how much of the universally accepted warming is due to this and other anthropogenic climate forcing and how much due to natural forcings, some of which we may not be aware of and may subside or reverse with time. It seems that this is the question that causes so much trouble as the climate system is so large and complex it is hard to pin down all the different forcings and feedbacks to the point that we are sure we know the split between natural and anthropogenic warming.

my two penneth anyhoo

Trevw

[Devonian]

I believe that it's actually fairly well accepted that not only is the entire atmospheric increase due to our CO2 production but that is only the tip of the (melting ) iceberg ....

my two penneth anyhoo

Trevw

That's how I see it Trevw

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, that's also pretty much how I see the situation as well.

Edit: oops, I mustn't have read the above post properly! The part I completely agree with is:

The extra CO2 we have emitted is warming the atmosphere (an indisputable physical fact) - the only actual 'question' is how much of the universally accepted warming is due to this and other anthropogenic climate forcing and how much due to natural forcings, some of which we may not be aware of and may subside or reverse with time

I'm not sure that I totally agree with the notion that the entire atmospheric increase is due to our CO2 production- it's quite possible, but we can't be 100% certain, as there may be other natural effects that are contributing- or, more concerning, offsetting what we are putting into the atmosphere.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Thundery wintry showers

[BrickFielder]

Having looked at the Carbon Cycle link above I should draw your attention to the following comment made.

In contrast to the static view conveyed in figures like this one, the carbon system is dynamic and coupled to the climate system on seasonal, interannual and decadal timescales.

There is no evidence that the imbalance remains the same as CO2 is increased, infact as the imbalance increases and the percentage of CO2 increases so do the factors redressing the balance. Think of seaweed (probably the largest converter of CO2 to Oxygen) which if you increase CO2 will grow more vigorously converting more CO2.

It is also worth looking at the next page about Cooling Factors which talks a little bit about planetary albedo. The largest factor in reflecting heat away from the planet is clouds or actually more specifically low and medium height clouds around the equator. As the planet warms so more moisture is evapourated and more cloud formed which cools and counteracts the affects of greenhouse warming.(If it forms high thunderclouds there is a net heat absorption). It should alos be noted that both desert (increasing) and ice fields(decreasing) reflect heat.

The point is that although there is significant proof of anthropogenic warming, extrapolating future affects should not be thought of in linear relationship terms. That we are having a serious impact on our climate I have no doubt, but I have some misgivings about CO2 being a fundamental cause.

[Methuselah]

A good post BF. Certainly one for taxing the grey matter!

But, isn't algal growth also limited (often more stringently?) by various other elements?

Correct me if I'm wrong - it's very often the case! <_< - but what use is an abundance of CO2, if the other nutrients required for growth, that are only upwelled in limited amounts in favourable places around the world, are insufficient to sustain the extra growth - I'm thinking the likes of magnesium, iron, phosphates, potassium here?

Edited March 29, 2006 by Peter Tattum

[trevw]

Yes, that's also pretty much how I see the situation as well.

Edit: oops, I mustn't have read the above post properly! The part I completely agree with is:

I'm not sure that I totally agree with the notion that the entire atmospheric increase is due to our CO2 production- it's quite possible, but we can't be 100% certain, as there may be other natural effects that are contributing- or, more concerning, offsetting what we are putting into the atmosphere.

fair point TWS, I think the piece I was reading was more along the lines that the CO2 we have emitted is 'more than enough to account' for the entire atmospheric CO2 rise and the majority of the PH increase caused by CO2 absorbed by the ocean - this doesn't mean that some other generator of CO2 might not have contributed some of the extra CO2 that is actually in the atmosphere on a 'per molecule basis', but from a 'CO2 accountancy' point of view you could assume that all natural sources have been absorbed by the ocean - sort of like shuffling debt around on credit cards

[BrickFielder]

A good post BF. Certainly one for taxing the grey matter!

But, isn't algal growth also limited (often more stringently?) by various other elements?

Correct me if I'm wrong - it's very often the case! <_< - but what use is an abundance of CO2, if the other nutrients required for growth, that are only upwelled in limited amounts in favourable places around the world, are insufficient to sustain the extra growth - I'm thinking the likes of magnesium, iron, phosphates, potassium here?

Yes I expect this is true, but by poluting water are we puting more nutrients into the water.Is more acidic rain killing off trees which affects CO2 levels.There are a whole host of unquantified parameters both positive and negative, which makes forecasting climate change frought with potential errors. Many climate change arguments revolve around looking at the last 30 years and multiplying the factors to work out what will happen. This assumes a sort of one to one relationship where as I expect large step changes interspersed with curves. A kind of lurching change as various factors reach their breaking points interspersed with periods of strong negative feedback which tries to keep the balance.

[trevw]

Having looked at the Carbon Cycle link above I should draw your attention to the following comment made.

There is no evidence that the imbalance remains the same as CO2 is increased, infact as the imbalance increases and the percentage of CO2 increases so do the factors redressing the balance. Think of seaweed (probably the largest converter of CO2 to Oxygen) which if you increase CO2 will grow more vigorously converting more CO2.

Surely though one of the main factors 'appearing' to redress the balance (or to mitigate CO2 rise) is the purely 'mechanical' absorbtion of CO2 by the worlds oceans, and as the CO2 is increased and as time passes it's ability to do this will reduce and all other mechanisms to reduce the CO2 balance will be even further overwhelmed than they are now..? (blimey that sounds all doom and gloom!)

Definitely agree that the cooling factors and their alteration one way or another are key to future trends though, it seems to me that it's entirely possible that a negative feedback to do with albedo might eventually completely cancel the heating effects of CO2 (not that this would change the fact that the CO2 was much higher) unfortuately it seems equally probably to me that it will go the other way..

Trevw

[Methuselah]

Yes I expect this is true, but by poluting water are we puting more nutrients into the water.Is more acidic rain killing off trees which affects CO2 levels.There are a whole host of unquantified parameters both positive and negative, which makes forecasting climate change frought with potential errors. Many climate change arguments revolve around looking at the last 30 years and multiplying the factors to work out what will happen. This assumes a sort of one to one relationship where as I expect large step changes interspersed with curves. A kind of lurching change as various factors reach their breaking points interspersed with periods of strong negative feedback which tries to keep the balance.

No argument from me on that...Climate change is, indeed, a very complex phenomenon; there are so many unanswered questions, one solitary brain can never hope to account for them all. The more variables (and the more brains? ) we try to take-into-account, the better IMO... <_<

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

...a 0.001% +ive bias would add-up to +33% atmospheric load, given enough time?

Ah Peter, absolutely ...given enough time.

The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.

et al we have been here before...pre any industrialisation

BFTP

[Guest Mike W]

getting non-warming energy on the go should be done even if we were in the middle of an ice age or some other abnormally cold slimate regime, in my view anyway, for several reasons including the fact that especially long term it is cheaper, and you don't necessarily hav eto really on dangerous parts of the planet and it tends be alot cleaner, I say long term cheaper but in some cases it's also short term cheaper, I think that Nuclear should not be set against the other clean technologies but should be teamed up with the other clean energy's and these can also produce Hygrogen fuel for our transport needs.

[Methuselah]

Ah Peter, absolutely ...given enough time.

The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.

et al we have been here before...pre any industrialisation

BFTP

But there is no historical precedent for an industrialized world, BFTP. Who could possibly argue that the Holocene Maximum was manmade? The fact that the HM happened does not alter the fact that industrialization has pushed-up the atmospheric load of CO2 by around a third, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas...

[Devonian]

Ah Peter, absolutely ...given enough time.

The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.

et al we have been here before...pre any industrialisation

BFTP

Your claim is debatable at best - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocen..._Variations.png look where 2004 is!).