Re: The definitive CO2 thread....

Oz wrote:

andrew <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

We doubled atmospheric CO2 from stone age to industrial revolution and
then agian from industrial revolution to now.

This is almost certainly incorrect.

I don't think so, the difference between previously forset covered land and
agriculture from clearances contributed vast amounts of atmospheric CO2 and
this continued apace as the new world was discovered and converted to
agriculture. Not only was the growing stock of carbon removed by colateral
reduction of the soil organic carbon in temperate cultivated, and drained
areas.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have
fluctuated between these levels many times over many ice ages. Man
certainly has NOT been responsible for the earlier ones.

Between what levels? I qualifies my statement to only include the period
when hominids walked the earth ( which I took to be about 400,000 years but
a quick Google suggests bipedal hominids may have existed 1.5 million years
ago), because we do not know if conditions were appropriate for their
existence before this period, Since then none of the regular excursions
(there have been 3) of atmospheric CO2 have been over 300 nor less than 150
ppm.

What reason have we to believe that
causing a gross excursion like that would be benign?

see 'age of the dinosaurs'?


Why, what's the significance?

The effect on climate may
be debatable but the effect on oceans ( which are in equilibrium with the
atmosphere and hole 45% of the load) is verified and having an effect.

Given the thermal inertia of large volumes of ice and water (most of the
sea is 4C for example) what makes you think that even pre-industrial
levels were not more than enough to continue the warming status? After
all glaciers have been steadily retreating for that last 10,000 years
with little indication they ever reached an equilibrium.

I realise that melting large volumes of ice won't change temperature much,
merely increase liquid water but my point was the acidifying effect of CO2
is readily demonstrates along with its linkage to reducing the ability of
crustaceans to fix CO2.

How much is other, more general, pollution preventing the rather small
amount of
fossil derived CO2 being mopped up?

Probably not remotely significant. Suggest a plausible pathway and
indicate reduced photosynthesis in polluted areas, say UK agricultural
production 1800-2000. Ooops, apparently a negative effect...#

See above ref de-forestation and sea changes, agricultural production tends
to be an annual effect and quickly cycled, like falling leaves.


With Photosynthesis being the largest means of fixing CO2 from the
atmosphere why don't learned bodies consider an intervention in this
growth and decay cycle more worthy than spending .55kW/kg of CO2 to stick
it back under the ground as a liquid?

Excellent idea.

Possibly. Following my talk to the EA and interested bodies at a seminar
last summer I've been asked to make a miniature system to provide material
for pot trials at East Malling Research Station over the Christmas period.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Perplexed about climate change
    ... Surely for CO2 the only thing ... burning fossil fuels it does seem sensible to look for alternatives even ... Indeed for most of the time agriculture ... > gatherers could not compete, economically or militarily, and their hunting ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The answer to global warming
    ... The plants are in no danger of running out of CO2. ... and temperatures have been rising with them for several thousand years. ... The most dramatic difference between the previous cycles and the ... agriculture, then domesticated animals a few thousand years ...
    (rec.motorcycles.dirt)
  • Re: Perplexed about climate change
    ... CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by various natural processes. ... CO2 is created by burning fossil fuels (while deforestation also contributes ... If the hypothesis of global warming due to ... Indeed for most of the time agriculture ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: global warming: is it us, or is it the sun?
    ... The current climate change appears to be, so far, exceedingly ... good for agriculture - and for other vegetation, ... ||_Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Could Dramatically Increase ... || Crop Yield increase at doubled atmospheric CO2 ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Cosmic rays and global warming
    ... comparison with the CO2 data that has been measured directly from the ... atmosphere for several decades now. ... This is because it can take many years, decades even, for the ice to ... mean that ice cores won't give us, directly, the seasonal cycle ...
    (talk.origins)