CO2 Content of Atmosphere

[arkie87]

Didn't the OP stated a small impact of modern humans to increase in CO2 level, biologicaly ?

For other things like man-made machines etc. that's a different story.

no, definitely not biologically. I'm talking about fossil fuel usage. All these calculations are for fossil fuels.

[Comatorium420]

Well it is true that humans do not release a lot of CO2 biologically with our respiration and normally the way we eat doenst consume so much either.

It is during the last 100 years that humans not only exponentially raised their CO2 production by useage of Coal and Oil mainly but we also inhibit the capacity that the earth has to filter this CO2. By massively cutting down forests (3 football fields a minute), thrawling the bottom of the oceans, dumping nuclear waste in the mediterranean sea and the Pacific ocean, by blowing up about 250 nuclear bomb tests for the lulz and by exploiting resources in wild areas.

We have destroyed the planets capacity to maintain balance into its atmosphere and at the same time, ecouraged a life-style of abusive consumerism driven by purposeful obsolete products in order to desperately maintain our economic structure.

The question is; Is economic progress killing the planet?

''The earth is humanity's craddle but a child cannot stay in it's craddle forever'' -Tsiolkovsky

Oh and btw, according to NASA, who performs atmospheric surveys flights over every biome of our planet once a week, we are doomed, completely doomed.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/according-nasa-funded-study-were-pretty-much-screwed

Edited June 26, 2015 by Comatorium420

[AngelLestat]

My point is that the ocean might be able to absorb the extra CO2 humans put into the atmosphere, given that it already contains much more carbon than the whole atmosphere contains, and contains 10x more carbon than all of the fossil fuels on the planet (according to the source).

Just because we add 30Gton CO2 per year into the atmosphere, and the atmosphere naturally exchanges 10x that with the ocean, doesnt mean those natural exchange rates wont change. If we release more CO2 into the atmosphere, the ocean will absorb more CO2 and reach a new equilibrium.

Ok good.. Now I understand your point and question.. But the same link you post, explain it.

Take a look to this picture:

The oceans absorb only 90 gt by year and expel the same value. It only absorb 2 gt extra by year due human activities. But you dont need to forget that there are already 800 Gt in the atmosphere. Why does not absorb all of that?

Because the earth already was in equilibrium, an equilibrium who took millions of years to reach, it may have changes... but they take time... and 50 years for earth or climate time is nothing.

Also the water by its own does not absorb co2, life does, so we are talking about the ocean surface who has 1000 gt vs 800 gt of our atmosphere.

So that amount extra of co2 will not be absorbed naturally, but... one of the best plans to capture co2 uses the oceans, we just need to improve the technique and see if its safe.

If we pump cold water from deep using the same waves, we carry nutrients to the surface where plants and plakton can glow (and only a few % of that plankton will be capture in the deep). But there are some concerns wih this, a huge amount of plants can become poison in some cases.

https://youtu.be/c3XwOs6jz5o?t=3m18s

[Shpaget]

So then you acknowledge that 97% of scientists agree that mankind is adding a very small amount of CO2/yr compared to what is exchanged per year naturally?

Sure. So what?

If you have a bowl of rice and you move it from the table to the counter and back ten times each day, you will move 7000 bowls worth of rice annually.

If you add one additional grain of rice each day, at the end of the year you'll have one and a half bowls of rice. A grain here and there is not much compared to annual rice exchange, but it adds up when compared to total mass being exchanged.

[Findthepin1]

We are not doomed. If there were to be a damaging change to the Earth's environment, there are literally dozens of ways to survive it. My favourite is to leave Earth behind. It will heal itself without us being there. It's done this before. There was a time when the oceans were more acidic than current activity on Earth can hope of making them. This directly preceded the Eocene in which the ancestors of large mammals appeared. There was a time when the atmosphere was 10-100 bars of primarily CO2 and the average surface temperature was 230 degrees Celsius. Life appeared in these conditions. We're the smartest life yet known so I'm sure we're not going to stand there and do nothing instead of running away to somewhere safe.

[magnemoe]

Don't forget that due to increasing global temperature vegetation period is getting longer. Also, plants are growing farther north than before. Forests are encroaching into tundra. And less ice around the poles mean more light for algae - which means polar waters are becoming more productive.

And one more thing - some of phytoplankton mass gets eaten by fish etc. But a lot of dead algae sink to the bottom of the ocean where carbon bound in their cells gets locked pretty effectively.

They add extra co2 in the air in some greenhouses but normally CO2 is not the restricting factor water or sunlight is.

Two outputs of CO2, one is as you say dead planton who end up on ocean floor or in other ways leaves the system for an long time. Second is CO2 in water getting converted to minerals, this happens some places. And as other say the ocean is an large co2 sink.

In fact we had snowball earth before cambium, its stopped as all the oceans was frozen over so no co2 from volcanoes was absorbed resulting in temperature rise melting the ice, this brought co2 level very high before it fell again. The opposite effect 250 million years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok good.. Now I understand your point and question.. But the same link you post, explain it.

Take a look to this picture:

http://s20.postimg.org/567ve34l9/Carbon_cycle.jpg

The oceans absorb only 90 gt by year and expel the same value. It only absorb 2 gt extra by year due human activities. But you dont need to forget that there are already 800 Gt in the atmosphere. Why does not absorb all of that?

Because the earth already was in equilibrium, an equilibrium who took millions of years to reach, it may have changes... but they take time... and 50 years for earth or climate time is nothing.

Also the water by its own does not absorb co2, life does, so we are talking about the ocean surface who has 1000 gt vs 800 gt of our atmosphere.

So that amount extra of co2 will not be absorbed naturally, but... one of the best plans to capture co2 uses the oceans, we just need to improve the technique and see if its safe.

If we pump cold water from deep using the same waves, we carry nutrients to the surface where plants and plakton can glow (and only a few % of that plankton will be capture in the deep). But there are some concerns wih this, a huge amount of plants can become poison in some cases.

https://youtu.be/c3XwOs6jz5o?t=3m18s

Nice overview, thanks, however will not deep sea absorb co2, that is in the 100 years perspective.

Now the extra absorption is because of increased co2 level, not emissions, look like if we cut emissions with 50% it would be at equilibrium at lest shorter term.

Yes its another equilibrium at 9 gt/y however we do not want to find out about it

And yes the plankton idea is nice, bonus is that it would be good for fish. think poisonous alga is an natural effect if it become too much of it at one place, yes its mostly because of too much nutrient because of pollution today so you would not want to do it in just a few large installations.

Seeding with iron also look promising, more fun both is probably self financing because the extra fish who can be fished.

[arkie87]

Ok good.. Now I understand your point and question.. But the same link you post, explain it.

Take a look to this picture:

http://s20.postimg.org/567ve34l9/Carbon_cycle.jpg

The oceans absorb only 90 gt by year and expel the same value. It only absorb 2 gt extra by year due human activities. But you dont need to forget that there are already 800 Gt in the atmosphere. Why does not absorb all of that?

Because the earth already was in equilibrium, an equilibrium who took millions of years to reach, it may have changes... but they take time... and 50 years for earth or climate time is nothing.

Also the water by its own does not absorb co2, life does, so we are talking about the ocean surface who has 1000 gt vs 800 gt of our atmosphere.

So that amount extra of co2 will not be absorbed naturally, but... one of the best plans to capture co2 uses the oceans, we just need to improve the technique and see if its safe.

If we pump cold water from deep using the same waves, we carry nutrients to the surface where plants and plakton can glow (and only a few % of that plankton will be capture in the deep). But there are some concerns wih this, a huge amount of plants can become poison in some cases.

https://youtu.be/c3XwOs6jz5o?t=3m18s

Obviously, those values are current "equilibriums". As you said, those values will change, though i dont think 50 million years is necessary to reach equilibrium. I dont know where that graph gets the value 2 Gton, as i've seen in other sources that 30-40% of CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, which is more like 10-15Gton. Regardless, given that the oceans are currently absorbing 30-40% of the CO2 humans release, it seems like 50 years might be long enough to reach equilibrium (if it took millions of years, the amount of CO2 absorbed by the ocean would be negligible until millions of years had passed)...

Water does absorb CO2; after all, the ocean is becoming more acidic due to this absorption... dont know where you get your facts from; i get mine from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

- - - Updated - - -

Sure. So what?

If you have a bowl of rice and you move it from the table to the counter and back ten times each day, you will move 7000 bowls worth of rice annually.

If you add one additional grain of rice each day, at the end of the year you'll have one and a half bowls of rice. A grain here and there is not much compared to annual rice exchange, but it adds up when compared to total mass being exchanged.

A better analogy is if you have a bowl of rice (CO2) which is filled with water (the atmosphere) inside a much larger bowl (the ocean). Adding one more grain of rice, will displace some volume, which will overflow into the larger bowl, which can easily absorb it, even if you have done this for hundreds of years. That is my point...

Edited June 26, 2015 by arkie87

[Nibb31]

So you figure it's ok to keep on burning more and more stuff?

[78stonewobble]

Well it is true that humans do not release a lot of CO2 biologically with our respiration and normally the way we eat doenst consume so much either.

It is during the last 100 years that humans not only exponentially raised their CO2 production by useage of Coal and Oil mainly but we also inhibit the capacity that the earth has to filter this CO2. By massively cutting down forests (3 football fields a minute), thrawling the bottom of the oceans, dumping nuclear waste in the mediterranean sea and the Pacific ocean, by blowing up about 250 nuclear bomb tests for the lulz and by exploiting resources in wild areas.

We have destroyed the planets capacity to maintain balance into its atmosphere and at the same time, ecouraged a life-style of abusive consumerism driven by purposeful obsolete products in order to desperately maintain our economic structure.

The question is; Is economic progress killing the planet?

''The earth is humanity's craddle but a child cannot stay in it's craddle forever'' -Tsiolkovsky

Oh and btw, according to NASA, who performs atmospheric surveys flights over every biome of our planet once a week, we are doomed, completely doomed.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/according-nasa-funded-study-were-pretty-much-screwed

How did dumping nuclear waste in the mediterranean and pacific and explode 250 nuclear bombs (isn't it more like 2000 anyway?) increase co2? And while exploiting ressources in the wild certainly does release some co2, you have to calculate in, not just the mining, but the refinement, production and transport and lifecycle of whatever we produce from there.

Personally I do believe that certain consumerism have reached too high levels. The whole new clothes, new phones, new computer every year is a bit much even for me. For comparison I upgrade my computer every 3-5 years, because that is important to me.

I don't believe anyone who says they fully understand how the earths climate works, so I do take the explanations about eg. global warming with a grain of salt. Not that I don't believe in global warming, but in the sense we don't completely understand how or why or the reasons yet... And it's on that basis I think it is dangerous to keep emitting as much co2 as we do, with our poor understanding of the ramifications.

Unlike dumping nuclear waste in oceans, which while a local problem, is a miniscule one compaired to global climate change. Unless godzilla offcourse...

[Kryten]

A better analogy is if you have a bowl of rice (CO2) which is filled with water (the atmosphere) inside a much larger bowl (the ocean). Adding one more grain of rice, will displace some volume, which will overflow into the larger bowl, which can easily absorb it, even if you have done this for hundreds of years. That is my point...

That analogy is awful. It implies the atmosphere is already effectively at the maximum possible level of carbon dioxide, but it's at extremely low levels over geographic timescales. We've had levels of several thousand ppm for extended periods in the past.

[lajoswinkler]

This is just like the dinosaurs becoming oil-- the algae might be replacing them (or perhaps, oil is actually dead algae?).

Oil is dead plankton algae. The contribution of dinosaurs is completely irrelevant and a kids' myth.

How did dumping nuclear waste in the mediterranean and pacific and explode 250 nuclear bombs (isn't it more like 2000 anyway?) increase co2? And while exploiting ressources in the wild certainly does release some co2, you have to calculate in, not just the mining, but the refinement, production and transport and lifecycle of whatever we produce from there.

That dumping was scarce, experimental and primarily in oceans' trenches. It actually isn't a bad idea if you want to get rid of it and you vitrify it first. It will get pulled in by tectonic subduction.

Since then waste is either stored or recycled because it's valuable.

Of course, it has no effect on CO2 footprint, or any impact, unless it's done in a terribly shoddy way.

Bombs, on the other hand (thousands of tests!) did terrible damage, but can't match the global warming.

[kzauner]

Look at the source I posted above there is orders of magnitude more co2 already dissolved in the oceans, and the exchange rate between ocean and atmosphere is naturally more than ten times what we release per year...

Please mind the difference between 'exchange' and 'absorption'. The whole subject is rather complex and IMO you are using a to simplistic way to interpret smallest sniplets of science.

But - if we assume that your interpretion points in the right direction, why we are seeing all-time-highs in atmospheric CO2 from year-to-year? Just compare:

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/03/07/an-inevitable-headline-in-2014-planets-co2-level-reaches-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-existence/.

Contains Data from last 60 years. If you are assuming that your point is valid, and oceans are absorbing the CO2 anway, why do we see a constant rise in atmosperic concentration? If 'a new model can't explain this (and the other data), its likely flawed.

[KerikBalm]

That analogy is awful. It implies the atmosphere is already effectively at the maximum possible level of carbon dioxide, but it's at extremely low levels over geographic timescales. We've had levels of several thousand ppm for extended periods in the past.

And to return to those levels would mean a mass extinction ... like what happened at the end of the Permian, when those levels shot up really high.

Permian extinction: biggest in the fossil record.

The analogy may not be very good, and CO2 levels may have been higher in the past - but that doesn't mean dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is a good idea.

[Jesrad]

So you figure it's ok to keep on burning more and more stuff?

The plants are loving it

[KerikBalm]

We are not doomed. If there were to be a damaging change to the Earth's environment, there are literally dozens of ways to survive it. My favourite is to leave Earth behind. It will heal itself without us being there. It's done this before. There was a time when the oceans were more acidic than current activity on Earth can hope of making them. This directly preceded the Eocene in which the ancestors of large mammals appeared.

Leave it behind? lol.... sure... ok, we'll all go live on mars... yea, sure... after we cause global warming there but not here... ok...

Also, citation for acidic oceans in the paleocene... and you comment about "ancestors of large mammals appeared" is incredibly vague. I could say the ancestors appeared in the permian, in the triassic, or at any time in the past...

There was a time when the atmosphere was 10-100 bars of primarily CO2 and the average surface temperature was 230 degrees Celsius. Life appeared in these conditions.

citation needed

We're the smartest life yet known so I'm sure we're not going to stand there and do nothing instead of running away to somewhere safe.

LOL, and you're the one that was scolding people about being arrogant.

We're so smart, but we won't fix a problem... we'll just "run away"...

Newsflash: we can't run away from Earth.

Even if we could get a tiny self sufficient population colonizing mars.... we'd doom billions... to willfully follow this strategy when it could be avoided is to make yourself a bigger mass murderer than all the mass murderers in history... like... über-hitler.

[arkie87]

That analogy is awful. It implies the atmosphere is already effectively at the maximum possible level of carbon dioxide, but it's at extremely low levels over geographic timescales. We've had levels of several thousand ppm for extended periods in the past.

You are technically right, but the point was to correct the analogy below:

Sure. So what?

If you have a bowl of rice and you move it from the table to the counter and back ten times each day, you will move 7000 bowls worth of rice annually.

If you add one additional grain of rice each day, at the end of the year you'll have one and a half bowls of rice. A grain here and there is not much compared to annual rice exchange, but it adds up when compared to total mass being exchanged.

The atmosphere is not saturated. Perhaps the bowl should have holes that allow rice grains to fall out into the bigger bucket below.

- - - Updated - - -

Oil is dead plankton algae. The contribution of dinosaurs is completely irrelevant and a kids' myth.

Good to know!

- - - Updated - - -

Please mind the difference between 'exchange' and 'absorption'. The whole subject is rather complex and IMO you are using a to simplistic way to interpret smallest sniplets of science.

Those large exchange rates arent necessarily all from absorption. But it is a scientific fact that the water masses ABSORB CO2 directly (without putting it into life), which has lead to an increase in the acidity of said water masses.

But - if we assume that your interpretion points in the right direction, why we are seeing all-time-highs in atmospheric CO2 from year-to-year? Just compare:

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/03/07/an-inevitable-headline-in-2014-planets-co2-level-reaches-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-existence/.

Contains Data from last 60 years. If you are assuming that your point is valid, and oceans are absorbing the CO2 anway, why do we see a constant rise in atmosperic concentration? If 'a new model can't explain this (and the other data), its likely flawed.

The reason atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising is because the ocean cannot absorb all of the CO2 right away. Diffusion takes concentration gradients and/or convection, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean. The ocean only removes 30-40% of the CO2 we release per year, the other 60-70% goes into the atmosphere...

[kzauner]

The atmosphere is not saturated. Perhaps the bowl should have holes that allow rice grains to fall out into the bigger bucket below.

That's true. Atmosphere saturation would mean levels close to 100% (Mars atmosphere for instance is saturated with CO2). You continue to use technical terms in a slight misleading way.

The reason atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising is because the ocean cannot absorb all of the CO2 right away. Diffusion takes concentration gradients and/or convection, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean. The ocean only removes 30-40% of the CO2 we release per year, the other 60-70% goes into the atmosphere...

And again ... The fact, that some CO2 is currently bound within large waterbodies (either as dissolved gas, or somehow bound as carbon within lifeforms) does not qualify as 'removed'. It is still here. This is a buffer. Small amounts of Carbon within this buffer will someday end up permanently bound within sediment layers (compare: OIL) or even more dangerous 'not so permanently' bound, for instance as methan-hydrate (the later will be released for instance when the water gets warmer).

Point is: The oceans are not able to take a lot more CO2, as the aquatic acidification is already a problem. because a huge amount lifeforms of within the oceans require some kind kind of calcium-based support structure. This does not go very well with acids. Krill, hummer, shells, whole Coral-reefs. With the stress of overfishing the results can be seen by anybody - even when you are just snorkeling. Just compare the development of the last 20 years.

Additionally alarming is the coral bleaching (you can just google that, I'm sure it turns up some images). This happens typically due to warmer water (other factors possible); as the coral push out their zooxanthellae (they live in symbiosis with these algae) the more acidic water can attack, weaken and finally kill the coral, so their symbiotic algae can not repopulate them (as they are under permanent stress).

The whole issue here is: the carbon cycle is a highly complex feedback-system (to be more precise: a whole lot of them). You can not pick out a very specific aspect, making wild assumption based on misunderstood technical terms and building up a 'solution' on these 'facts'. This does not work.

But again: Lets assume you are right. How exactly do you explain the constant rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since WW2? What other explanation can you offer? I'm bringing this up because: You can't explain these just with 'concentration grades and gradients' in the larger water bodies of the earth. Oceans are slow, but they are not that dead-slow.

As we are here in a somehow space-related forum: NASA has a great deal of information concerning the subject, with tons of links to scientific papers, raw data, and a lot more (also a lot of pictures!): http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

You can download the CO2 measurements since 1958 as csv-txt and test the validity of your assumptions against this data. If your model can explain the levels we are measuring (not, not just one ore two cherry-picked datasets, but all of them within reasonable deltas) then a lot of people will be highly interested in your findings.

- - - Updated - - -

ninja'd...

Those large exchange rates arent necessarily all from absorption. But it is a scientific fact that the water masses ABSORB CO2 directly (without putting it into life), which has lead to an increase in the acidity of said water masses.

Point is: you understand 'absorption' as in: Is 'absorbed' - hencefore permanently away. This is misleading. CO2 is dissolved in water as the other gasses in the atmosphere too (O2, Nitrogen); CO2 also forms cabonic acid with water (H2CO3). The later is an all but stable acid. Just open a can of soda. When there are more bubbles to see, then heat it up. What happens? If you are looking for an analogy: The water bodies on earth are not CO2 storage, they are more buffers.

The reason atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising is because the ocean cannot absorb all of the CO2 right away. Diffusion takes concentration gradients and/or convection, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean. The ocean only removes 30-40% of the CO2 we release per year, the other 60-70% goes into the atmosphere...

I ignore you made-up numbers here and concentrate on the first sentence. So, not 'right away' you say. What time-horizon do you assume? The data in posting you have quoted shows a timerange since 1960. So you do have more than 50 years in mind? You must have - else the effects you claim should be visible in the data ... because if its 50 years - we should see the 'absorption' effects for the gas emitted in the 1960's.

I can't see that. Can you? No? So more than 50 years. 100? 200? 1000? What do you have in mind?

An alternative explanation to yours is: There is no absorption. At least not in the way you are implying.

Edited June 26, 2015 by kzauner
update

[justidutch]

We need to create a strain of genetically modified bovines that are able to absorb more CO2 than they expend.

[PakledHostage]

Even if we could get a tiny self sufficient population colonizing mars.... we'd doom billions... to willfully follow this strategy when it could be avoided is to make yourself a bigger mass murderer than all the mass murderers in history... like... über-hitler.

Nice. Now we've got examples of both Godwin's law and Poe's law in the same thread!

[AngelLestat]

however will not deep sea absorb co2, that is in the 100 years perspective.

not sure what you mean. I dint understand the sentence.

Now the extra absorption is because of increased co2 level, not emissions, look like if we cut emissions with 50% it would be at equilibrium at lest shorter term.

Yes its another equilibrium at 9 gt/y however we do not want to find out about it

Yeah, that is a good point that I dint mention. Let me further clarify this to others:

Now atmosphere contains 800 Gt of co2, but 200 years back was like 550 Gt, that increase of 250 gt extra in the atmosphere only contribute to 2 gt of extra co2 captured by year on the oceans. So is clear that nature by it self cant compesate the extra co2 emissions.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

And yes the plankton idea is nice, bonus is that it would be good for fish. think poisonous alga is an natural effect if it become too much of it at one place, yes its mostly because of too much nutrient because of pollution today so you would not want to do it in just a few large installations.

Seeding with iron also look promising, more fun both is probably self financing because the extra fish who can be fished.

Yeah it may be similar as use water irrigation and fertilizers on land. It may help, we just need to control it.

Obviously, those values are current "equilibriums". As you said, those values will change, though i dont think 50 million years is necessary to reach equilibrium.

Where is the 50 millions years value come from? In my example I said that 50 years (strong time lapse of human activity) is nothing compared with climate change times. So nature can not balance this.

I dont know where that graph gets the value 2 Gton, as i've seen in other sources that 30-40% of CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, which is more like 10-15Gton. Regardless, given that the oceans are currently absorbing 30-40% of the CO2 humans release, it seems like 50 years might be long enough to reach equilibrium (if it took millions of years, the amount of CO2 absorbed by the ocean would be negligible until millions of years had passed)...

The reason atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising is because the ocean cannot absorb all of the CO2 right away. Diffusion takes concentration gradients and/or convection, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean. The ocean only removes 30-40% of the CO2 we release per year, the other 60-70% goes into the atmosphere...

From what I can see, mostly all graph or sources of info are correct, sometimes they choose different ways to measure (ppm, Gt=bmt, or some weird imperial units), there are some graph which was made in different years, 90s, 2000, now.. and you can see how the levels increased with the years. Also sources choose different ways to show data, for example they may separate or merge effects. Plus bad conversion or translations.

Humans release almost 9 gt by year, this includes the effect of deforestation. From those 9gt by year, less than 30% is absorbed by oceans (2gt) and (3gt) by forest.

Or maybe the 30% to 40% that you are talking about is the one absorbed by the sea from the total cycle (90 sea + 120 Forest + 5 Extra), so in that case seas absorb a 40%.

Different graphs:

199x

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/pix/research/climate_ecosystems/AnthropogenicCarbonCycleBox2.png

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/files/2010/10/k2_kompo_kohlenstoffkreislauf_e_en.jpg

200x

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/img/carboncycle.gif

201x

http://clas-pages.uncc.edu/mesas/files/2015/01/carbon-cycle-boiled.png

http://s20.postimg.org/567ve34l9/Carbon_cycle.jpg

I don't believe anyone who says they fully understand how the earths climate works, so I do take the explanations about eg. global warming with a grain of salt. Not that I don't believe in global warming, but in the sense we don't completely understand how or why or the reasons yet... And it's on that basis I think it is dangerous to keep emitting as much co2 as we do, with our poor understanding of the ramifications.

The basic understanding is clear, also the consequences.. So try to take more than a grain of salt next time.

The plants are loving it

Until they become furnitude or biofuels.

Edited June 26, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Albert VDS]

It's not a matter of if it's true or not. It is true but that's not the dilemma here.

It's a matter of IF we don't do anything about it and it causes severe harm to all living things, then wouldn't we

look very stupid? Even if you think it's not true, should we wager all life on Earth just because it might not be true?

The plants are loving it

Actually, the more heat the less they eat.

[arkie87]

That's true. Atmosphere saturation would mean levels close to 100% (Mars atmosphere for instance is saturated with CO2). You continue to use technical terms in a slight misleading way.

What technical terms have i used that is misleading? If CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, then it is out of the atmosphere and cannot contribute to greenhouse effect, no? Whether it causes problems via ocean acidification is another issue...

And again ... The fact, that some CO2 is currently bound within large waterbodies (either as dissolved gas, or somehow bound as carbon within lifeforms) does not qualify as 'removed'. It is still here. This is a buffer. Small amounts of Carbon within this buffer will someday end up permanently bound within sediment layers (compare: OIL) or even more dangerous 'not so permanently' bound, for instance as methan-hydrate (the later will be released for instance when the water gets warmer).

Point is: The oceans are not able to take a lot more CO2, as the aquatic acidification is already a problem. because a huge amount lifeforms of within the oceans require some kind kind of calcium-based support structure. This does not go very well with acids. Krill, hummer, shells, whole Coral-reefs. With the stress of overfishing the results can be seen by anybody - even when you are just snorkeling. Just compare the development of the last 20 years.

It is "removed" from the atmosphere, so it cannot contribute to greenhouse effect. That is what i meant by removed. Whether it causes oceanic problems is another matter altogether.

Point is: you understand 'absorption' as in: Is 'absorbed' - hencefore permanently away. This is misleading. CO2 is dissolved in water as the other gasses in the atmosphere too (O2, Nitrogen); CO2 also forms cabonic acid with water (H2CO3). The later is an all but stable acid. Just open a can of soda. When there are more bubbles to see, then heat it up. What happens? If you are looking for an analogy: The water bodies on earth are not CO2 storage, they are more buffers.

How many times must you say the same thing?? Yes, it is definitely a buffer and has a huge potential storage capacity given the huge volume.

CO2 does leave soda, but there is always some dissolved (just no bubbles). This is at room temperature and pressure... However, at high pressures, CO2 readily dissolves in water, and given the ocean is miles deep, the pressure further down is easily larger than that of a soda bottle (10 m is 1 atm...), and can stably store CO2, even at higher temperatures...

I ignore you made-up numbers here and concentrate on the first sentence. So, not 'right away' you say. What time-horizon do you assume? The data in posting you have quoted shows a timerange since 1960. So you do have more than 50 years in mind? You must have - else the effects you claim should be visible in the data ... because if its 50 years - we should see the 'absorption' effects for the gas emitted in the 1960's.

I can't see that. Can you? No? So more than 50 years. 100? 200? 1000? What do you have in mind?

An alternative explanation to yours is: There is no absorption. At least not in the way you are implying.

I dont understand how you can argue this. These numbers are not made up.... It is pretty ubiquitous that 30-40% of the CO2 humans release from burning fossil fuels is absorbed (via the process of absorption) by the ocean. The rest contributes to rising CO2 ppm in the atmosphere.

Edited June 26, 2015 by arkie87

[Shpaget]

My analogy was aimed at the comparison of the mass of CO2 exchanged each year, mass of additional CO2 introduced by fossil fuel burning and the relative net increase in atmospheric CO2.

Total mass of exchanged CO2 may be huge, and the man made amount not so much. We may produce additional 1% of total atmospheric CO2, but we do every year, year after year. The mass of the atmospheric CO2 has increased by almost 30% in the last 50 years. Forget about absolute volumes. Relative is what I'm talking about. From 310 to 400 ppm in 50 years is a huge increase. On top of that, the rate is increasing. Each year we add more CO2 to the atmosphere than we did the last year.

[Albert VDS]

What technical terms have i used that is misleading? If CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, then it is out of the atmosphere and cannot contribute to greenhouse effect, no? Whether it causes problems via ocean acidification is another issue...

It is "removed" from the atmosphere, so it cannot contribute to greenhouse effect. That is what i meant by removed. Whether it causes oceanic problems is another matter altogether.

The increasing level or CO2 in the oceans is bad news for shelled creatures, which are at the bottom of the food chain.

[arkie87]

Now atmosphere contains 800 Gt of co2, but 200 years back was like 550 Gt, that increase of 250 gt extra in the atmosphere only contribute to 2 gt of extra co2 captured by year on the oceans. So is clear that nature by it self cant compesate the extra co2 emissions.

I am confused by your calculations. You said now 800Gton CO2 but 200 years ago it was 550Gt, which is (800-550)/200 0.75 Gt/yr, right?

You said the ocean now captures 2Gt/yr more, which is 3x the average rate we have been adding it, correct?

Where is the 50 millions years value come from? In my example I said that 50 years (strong time lapse of human activity) is nothing compared with climate change times. So nature can not balance this.

That is very true. Natural climate change appears to be slow (hundreds, thousands or millions of years). However, the fact that 30-40% of human CO2 emissions are presently absorbed by the oceans indicate that the time constant/response time of the oceans are much faster than those of natural climate change, no? Otherwise, all of the CO2 we release would stay in the atmosphere until the earth could react. This clearly isnt the case since sources say 30-40% of the CO2 is absorbed by the ocean alone and contributes to ocean acidification.

The fact that it takes much longer for natural climate change to occur might indicate it is driven by slow periodic processes, and not that the earth takes soo long to react.

From what I can see, mostly all graph or sources of info are correct, sometimes they choose different ways to measure (ppm, Gt=bmt, or some weird imperial units), there are some graph which was made in different years, 90s, 2000, now.. and you can see how the levels increased with the years. Also sources choose different ways to show data, for example they may separate or merge effects. Plus bad conversion or translations.

Humans release almost 9 gt by year, this includes the effect of deforestation. From those 9gt by year, less than 30% is absorbed by oceans (2gt) and (3gt) by forest.

Or maybe the 30% to 40% that you are talking about is the one absorbed by the sea from the total cycle (90 sea + 120 Forest + 5 Extra), so in that case seas absorb a 40%.

Different graphs:

199x

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/pix/research/climate_ecosystems/AnthropogenicCarbonCycleBox2.png

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/files/2010/10/k2_kompo_kohlenstoffkreislauf_e_en.jpg

200x

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/img/carboncycle.gif

201x

http://clas-pages.uncc.edu/mesas/files/2015/01/carbon-cycle-boiled.png

http://s20.postimg.org/567ve34l9/Carbon_cycle.jpg

These are interesting graphs, though the numbers vary wildly for some values, but the general gist is the same, and support my point that the ocean is absorbing CO2.

- - - Updated - - -

My analogy was aimed at the comparison of the mass of CO2 exchanged each year, mass of additional CO2 introduced by fossil fuel burning and the relative net increase in atmospheric CO2.

Total mass of exchanged CO2 may be huge, and the man made amount not so much. We may produce additional 1% of total atmospheric CO2, but we do every year, year after year. The mass of the atmospheric CO2 has increased by almost 30% in the last 50 years. Forget about absolute volumes. Relative is what I'm talking about. From 310 to 400 ppm in 50 years is a huge increase. On top of that, the rate is increasing. Each year we add more CO2 to the atmosphere than we did the last year.

I agree 100%, natural processes cannot keep up with the rate we are releasing CO2, just going with the numbers we have now (even ignoring ice core measurements).

But according to the physics, if we stopped burning all fossil fuels and releasing all CO2, the ocean would absorb excess CO2 rather quickly, since it naturally exchanges orders of magnitude more CO2 per year than we currently release.

Edited June 26, 2015 by arkie87