Has science determined an optimum CO2 level?

[GIGObuster]

@HoneyBadgerDC

Thats kind of where I was going wit this, could the living bio mass in the ocean increase by 30% for instance. How long would it take those living animals to die and decay back into free carbons.

Not likely, even the study quoted report that only some of the increase seen in CO2 can is being taken by the trees.

“My guess is that they are already sopping up some of the extra carbon,” he said.

But Dr. Parker said it was unclear whether the trend could be sustained. “We don’t think this can persist for too long because other limiting factors will come into play, like water availability and soil nutrients,” he said.

Under ideal conditions reforestation and other efforts can help a lot on that front, but it is also a bit of information missing if one does not take into account that scientists and experts also looked at what those sinks can do before, most of what I have seen also reported on the likely increase in three and plant growth, and they also report that it follows a likelihood that we will get a reduction of plants in some regions due to dry conditions. In other words, one should not trust that that will save the day.

How climate change plunders the planet

The Earth could warm another 2 to 11.5°F this century if we fail to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels and deforestation—devastating our livelihoods and the natural world we cherish.

As for the oceans, there is also the other evil twin that comes as a result of an increase in CO2, ocean acidification:

Acidifying oceans

About one-third of the CO2 pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes is absorbed by the world’s oceans, where it forms carbonic acid. A 2010 study published in Nature Geoscience warns that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions could cause oceans to acidify at a rate unprecedented in at least the last 65 million years.

What it is clear is that if the biomass of the oceans was increasing and sequestering the excess CO2 we should had observed already a reduction of the CO2 in recent years, but that is not the case. What is more worrisome is that the oceans might begin to capture less CO2.

http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/ocean-uptake-climate-change.html

Although studies into the impacts of high concentrations of CO2 in the oceans are still in their infancy, evidence indicates that reduced ocean carbon uptake is starting to occur and that this poses a serious hazard because this is likely to speed up global warming, as occurred when this type of feedback was initiated during the early warming stages of previous interglacials On October 16th 2007, the US Senate passed a provision proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to Protect Oceans from Acidification. The legislation, co-sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) would focus more research attention on ocean acidification, which threatens marine life and the fishing industry.

Both the trends in ocean acidification and CO2 absorption will have very large implications, perhaps comparable to the potential impacts of more rapid melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Moreover, reduced CO2 absorption by the oceans could accelerate warming greatly, pushing the climate toward a more precipitous melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

CoralThe recent developments give heightened urgency to our having a grasp of the ocean acidification and CO2 absorption trends. Although research and resources aiming at monitoring oceans should be drastically enhanced to fully understand the various consequences that will bring about anthropogenic Co2 emissions, there is cause for great concern over the threat carbon dioxide poses for the health of our oceans.

[eschereal]

@FXMastermind

Irrigating the worlds deserts, with solar power of course, would be the fastest and most economic way to remove carbon.

Nice thought, but, for example, the Sahara is mostly reg, hamada and mountain, just dumping a lot of water on it will leave you with little more than something like a wet, steamy gravel parking lot.

[FXMastermind]

“The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years,” said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated | Live Science

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

Plants “remove” a huge amount of our emissions already. Irrigating the worlds deserts, with solar power of course, would be the fastest and most economic way to remove carbon. Economic because the plants would have a huge economic value, as well as creating huge areas of land to live on. Making fuel from atmospheric CO2, using solar power of course, would also be good.

@eschereal

Nice thought, but, for example, the Sahara is mostly reg, hamada and mountain, just dumping a lot of water on it will leave you with little more than something like a wet, steamy gravel parking lot.

@FXMastermind

“The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years,” said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated | Live Science

ahem

Did you not notice my response?

Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.

But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

[TroutMan]

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but timeliness is evidently not.

As for your point, a scale of a few hundred years to irrigate the Sahara Desert doesn’t sound like the “fastest way to remove carbon.” I’m also not sure where you think all the water will come from. Solar power doesn’t magically create water for irrigation.

[FXMastermind]

@TroutMan

As for your point, a scale of a few hundred years to irrigate the Sahara Desert doesn’t sound like the “fastest way to remove carbon.”

I’m not talking about hundreds of years, that was the natural event during the Holocene optimum, when rain fell on the Sahara. I’m speaking of reality, of the now.

@TroutMan

I’m also not sure where you think all the water will come from. Solar power doesn’t magically create water for irrigation.

Actually, it does.

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2013/11/desert-farming-experiment-yields-first-results

Seawater Greenhouses Produce Tomatoes in the Desert

If we, meaning mankind, spent the money we spend on war and dealing death, on using solar power described in the links, we could turn the deserts into lush plant filled carbon capturing areas. Way more fun than building 50,000 H bombs, and much safer.

[TroutMan]

Please provide the data on how you propose to use this technology to irrigate 3.8 million sq. miles of desert. Include the details on where the solar panels/mirrors will be located, how many million square miles of solar panels/mirrors will be required (noting from your cite that the growing area is 6% of the area required for the rest of the facility), where this volume of water will come from, and how this water will be pumped over these distances. Then please provide the data on how this is cheaper and faster than any other method of carbon sequestration.

Alternatively, change the subject and obfuscate by throwing up a wall of links. All the same to me.

[am77494]

@FXMastermind

Actually, it does.

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2013/11/desert-farming-experiment-yields-first-results

Seawater Greenhouses Produce Tomatoes in the Desert – State of the Planet

If we, meaning mankind, spent the money we spend on war and dealing death, on using solar power described in the links, we could turn the deserts into lush plant filled carbon capturing areas. Way more fun than building 50,000 H bombs, and much safer.

Dude - not so fast. I resisted a long time to join this discussion but all those links are research projects that have very little commercial value and a lot of “research funding” value.

Let me give you what these clever researchers conveniently forget to mention :

1. What happens if there is a sandstorm for a few days or the solar power plant trips for a few days (they do a lot BTW)? Do they let the green plants die since there is no solar power ? - the answer is NO - they have backup power - generator sets or the grid. So now you have doubled your investment - solar power + standby electric power

2. How do you get fertilizers for the greenhouse ? Fossil fuels of-course

3. How much power is consumed in running the fans and the sea water pumps ? and where does it come from ?

4. During desalination the effluent created is higher in salinity than seawater and the US regulations require that it be discharged a few miles into the ocean because if discharged close to the shore marine life dies :rolleyes: - guess what the Qataris do

5. What happens to the effluent from the greenhouse ? Eutrophication ?

I am saying that the technology is theoretically feasible. Its a can do technology - but not a should do. You make it sound like human will is all that is preventing it go all global - but it is not. There are significant engineering challenges to make it work - and even if it works, it maynot be such a economic or environmental miracle

[FXMastermind]

@am77494

I am saying that the technology is theoretically feasible. Its a can do technology - but not a should do. You make it sound like human will is all that is preventing it go all global - but it is not. There are significant engineering challenges to make it work - and even if it works, it may not be such a economic or environmental miracle

I might agree, but I was thinking economics, and perhaps dreaming. Planting forests and greening deserts might be the most cost effective means of countering an excess of carbon. Note the use of “might”, which is how real scientists explain the future.

Of course there are challenges, but certainly using solar to make fresh water is one of the oldest ways of using solar energy. It’s why it rains and snows and all.

I could mention seeding the barren ocean areas with iron or rock dust, which would really eat up carbon. But that idea seems to enrage people. I mean, ships can fuck up the weather/climate with ship trails every day of the year, but jeez you talk about having them spread some powdered rock dust in their wake to feed algae, people lose their minds.