1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,792
    Location:
    Dark City
    We have barely ramped up Solar panel manufacturing.

    Even Tesla hasn't ramped up enough for manufacturing. They have pretty much sold out most of production for batteries. No doubt the Tesla III will also be sold out. So even they can't meet requirement for their own product.

    Even if a government wanted to mandate all new cars have a 60 km electric range there just isn't enough production capability to do that.
     
  2. kally

    kally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Fremantle
    Global energy emissions plateau despite economic growth
     
  3. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
  4. kally

    kally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Fremantle
    That's correct, even the mean growth rate continues to rise, despite a leveling out of annual emissions. That's because the amount of emissions is as high as ever and top up and above the effects ocean and land sinks have on the atmospheric level. This is why emissions must be cut quickly and significantly to stop atmospheric CO2 rise.
     
  5. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,792
    Location:
    Dark City
    How long will it take to significantly cut emissions. 20 years? 30 years? 50 years?

    Thats the killer, it really doesn't matter if this year is the worst ever, eventually we will definitely be in the hot zone, and it will simply take too long to reduce emissions to try to get out of it.

    By the time we have a real hold on cutting emissions, CO2 levels may be 50% greater than they are now. Thats not good.
     
  6. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    And you know this because.....
     
  7. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    Interestingly, the southern hemisphere is warming at half the rate of the northern hemisphere.
     
  8. kally

    kally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Fremantle
    Research by Meinshausen, M.; et al. (November 2011) found that if we were to begin reducing our emissions substantially from now (to about 50% by 2045, 90% by 2100) atmospheric CO2-equivalent concentrations will continue to rise to 460ppm just before 2050 and then fall to 360ppm by 2300.

    The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300
     
  9. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    But that still doesn't explain why CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere accelerated during a period of zero emissions growth.

    Something doesn't add up.
     
  10. kally

    kally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,036
    Location:
    Fremantle
    It makes sense that if there's a lag in the peak CO2 concentration after peak emissions, then there is a commensurate lag in the growth rate of concentration also. Why that is is probably very complicated and is bound up in the carbon cycle, and varies a significant amount year to year, but the trend is clear.
     
  11. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    So why isn't there a lag visible in the photosynthesis cycle from the biosphere?

    The Mauna Loa observatory clearly shows a sinusoidal modulation with peak value in April and minimum value in October.

    If net co2 exchange from the biosphere is so clearly visible, why isn't the 24 month downturn in global emissions?
     
  12. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    The downturn in global emissions means a slowing down in the rate at which more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. We're still adding more which does increase the amount in the atmosphere, just not as fast. It does seem though that the rate at which the concentration is increasing is rising and that could be alarming as it suggests the problem is running away from our control.
     
  13. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    17,480
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Could be that;
    1. this is the beginning of the end of the oceans sucking up huge amounts of carbon.
    2. methane emissions from melting permafrost could be increasing

    I foresee property prices in Tasmania booming :)
     
  14. antipody

    antipody Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Messages:
    5,039
    Location:
    Small World
    What are you talking about? There is no global downturn in emissions. If anything, the rate of growth has slowed in the last year, but we're emitting at record high levels, globally.

    Growth in emissions may have slowed or even stalled, but that's not going to show up in a significant change in growth of GHG the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years and in the ocean for even longer, so even though our rate of increase may slow, we're still increasing the atmospheric concentration, every single second of every single day.

    The annual periodicity of global CO2 concentration is a result of seasonal flux of carbon out of the atmosphere as the northern hemisphere's spring growth spurt adds to terrestrial carbon and then gives this back in the northern autumn. This biospheric flux is of a much larger magnitude (around 210 GT/yr) than the annual anthropogenic contribution (around 6-10GT/yr), hence the difference in gradients of the long term and short term timeframes of the global CO2 curve.

    Also note that CO2 isn't the only GHG. Methane, HFCs, nitrous oxides are also powerful GHGs, and like CO2, growing in the atmosphere at record high rates.

    Some scary reading about this year...

    http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/8e377bac4cc765bb9df82d41bc9572e2.pdf

     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2016
  15. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    I did read that methane concentration is rising pretty quickly of late so yes to point 2. On top of that with the big push to replace coal with gas the risk of fugitive methane emissions becomes more of a concern. I wonder how good Russian leak detection software is.
     
  16. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,058
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    They cold vent (no flare) natural gas all over the world in a lot of situations. It is amazing the amount that must just go straight into the atmosphere each day.
     
  17. antipody

    antipody Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Messages:
    5,039
    Location:
    Small World
    The difference is methane is much more volatile than CO2.

    IPCC levels attempt to rate it at about 144x GHG potential IIRC

    High radiative forcing of the exponentially increasing CH4 concentration may we what's accounting for our trajectory down the IPCC's worst case scenario.

    Don't mean to sound alarmist or anything, but rapid global atmospheric engineering appears necessary.
     
  18. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    And now we have this:

    Carbon emissions rate 'highest in 66 million years'

     
  19. ernie

    ernie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Messages:
    17,217
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Carbon emissions may be higher now, but the CO2 ppm levels have certainly been way higher in the past. Around 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period.


    - Ernie.
     
  20. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,792
    Location:
    Dark City
    Things were pretty different back then. Obviously with land plants now its unlikely to get that high again. Also no mammals. Or land animals. Also some of the Cambrian period the air wasn't even breathable. Also mass extinction event ended pretty much all life.

    Which is probably where we are heading if we release over ~200 years all the trapped carbon in oil, gas and coal and chop down a significant portion of all the trees. It will take many years to have a clear and stunning affect, but it will be almost impossible manage.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: