What DOES happen with the pollution?

Stoneburg · November 30, 2009, 8:38pm

The AGW-debate seems most alive in the US currently. In most of the rest of the world (afaik) the majority seems to believe that human activities has and will influence out climate and enviroment. I’m one of those.

I’ve read and (I think) understood the explanations given for AGW and its effects. Basically, we systematically dig up stuff from the rock and pump it out in the atmosphere, while at the same time diminishing the ecosystems ability to re-absorb it. This would logically lead to a surplus of different carbon-based substances. If you burn down a tree, that’s OK as long as a new tree is allowed to grow. The previous tree had absorbed carbon, and the carbon released will be absorbed by a new tree. Assuming one is allowed to grow. A zero sum proposition.

But assuming that is is true that we’re diminishing the global ecosystems ability to absord carbon (I think this is pretty easy to prove but if needed I guess I will get cites). Also assuming we are systematically moving carbon from the rock to the atmosphere. Where does it go? What does it do?

As far as I can tell, the people sceptical of AGW do not present an alternative model. They just criticise the one that proponents of AGW use. Kind of like how creationists mainly attack the Theory of Evolution, but don’t really offer an alternative unless you count the Genesis (which, I’m sorry, isn’t very scientific).

I’ve checked, and it turns out only hydrogen has the velocity to escape earths atmoshpere unaided. So where does all the extra stuff go?

Ps. I’m pretty sure there’s a few misspellings in the text, please be understanding, second language and no spell check function…

Sage_Rat · November 30, 2009, 8:49pm

I’m just going to copy and paste from the Wikipedia:

Greenhouse Gas:

Removal from the atmosphere and global warming potential
Natural processes

Greenhouse gases can be removed from the atmosphere by various processes:
* as a consequence of a physical change (condensation and precipitation remove water vapor from the atmosphere).
* as a consequence of chemical reactions within the atmosphere. For example, methane is oxidized by reaction with naturally occurring hydroxyl radical, OH· and degraded to CO2 and water vapor (CO2 from the oxidation of methane is not included in the methane Global warming potential). Other chemical reactions include solution and solid phase chemistry occurring in atmospheric aerosols.
* as a consequence of a physical exchange between the atmosphere and the other compartments of the planet. An example is the mixing of atmospheric gases into the oceans.
* as a consequence of a chemical change at the interface between the atmosphere and the other compartments of the planet. This is the case for CO2, which is reduced by photosynthesis of plants, and which, after dissolving in the oceans, reacts to form carbonic acid and bicarbonate and carbonate ions (see ocean acidification).
* as a consequence of a photochemical change. Halocarbons are dissociated by UV light releasing Cl· and F· as free radicals in the stratosphere with harmful effects on ozone (halocarbons are generally too stable to disappear by chemical reaction in the atmosphere).
Atmospheric lifetime

Aside from water vapor, which has a residence time of about nine days, major greenhouse gases are well-mixed, and take many years to leave the atmosphere.[50] Although it is not easy to know with precision how long it takes greenhouse gases to leave the atmosphere, there are estimates for the principal greenhouse gases. Jacob (1999)[51] defines the lifetime τ of an atmospheric species X in a one-box model as the average time that a molecule of X remains in the box. Mathematically τ can be defined as the ratio of the mass m (in kg) of X in the box to its removal rate, which is the sum of the flow of X out of the box (Fout), chemical loss of X (L), and deposition of X (D) (all in kg/sec): au = \frac{m}{F_{out}+L+D} [51]

The atmospheric lifetime of a species therefore measures the time required to restore equilibrium following an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere. Individual atoms or molecules may be lost or deposited to sinks such as the soil, the oceans and other waters, or vegetation and other biological systems, reducing the excess to background concentrations. The average time taken to achieve this is the mean lifetime. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is often incorrectly stated to be only a few years because that is the average time for any CO2 molecule to stay in the atmosphere before being removed by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, or other processes. However, this ignores the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the other reservoirs. It is the net concentration changes of the various greenhouse gases by all sources and sinks that determines atmospheric lifetime, not just the removal processes.[citation needed]

Stoneburg · November 30, 2009, 9:24pm

According to that information, CO2 is either absorbed into new plants or into the oceans. One of the assumptions made in my OP is that this capacity is systematically diminished, for example by de-forestation and the rising temperature in the oceans.

Simplicio · November 30, 2009, 9:38pm

I don’t think even the denialists attempt to claim that atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] isn’t rising. The present day atmosphere isn’t exactly hard to access or measure, and a pretty quick pen and paper calculation can show that we’re releasing enough CO[sub]2[/sub] relative to the volume of the atmosphere to make a difference. I think I’ve heard one or two claim that the oceans are uptaking all of it, but again, current ocean acidity is measured pretty frequently (and shoving a bunch of extra CO2 in the ocean isn’t such a great thing either), so I don’t think to many pursue that argument.

FWIW, skepticalscience.com tries to keep track of what arguments are current amongst skeptics, and “CO2 isn’t rising” doesn’t appear to be in the top 10, anyways.

Sage_Rat · November 30, 2009, 9:43pm

Deforestation just decreases the rate at which it takes to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Given enough time and lowered output, the plants we have will catch up. Either way, deforestation isn’t really a key element of AGW, despite what you’ve written in your OP. The problem is output more than it is removal. Or if it is an issue of removing the CO2 then that would be a discussion of what technology we could build to scrub the air moreso than it would be a discussion of how many trees we need to plant. You’re not going to convince people to give up their land and cities to be bulldozed and converted to forests.

Stoneburg · November 30, 2009, 9:51pm

I’m not trying to convince people of that, I am trying to find out if there is an alternative explanation to what happens to all the stuff we release into the atmosphere. It is an attempt to fight ignorance (my own).

Simplicio · November 30, 2009, 10:09pm

But again, atmospheric levels are empirically shown to be rising, which pretty easily answers the question of where it ends up, it (or at least some decent fraction of it) is in the atmosphere. If you came up with a mechanism that consumed all the new CO[sub]2[/sub] that the human race was releasing, you’d need a second, fairly difficult to come up with, mechanism that released a similar amount of CO[sub]2[/sub] to take its place to account for the observed rise.

elfkin477 · November 30, 2009, 10:58pm

A lot of the air polution drifts eastward, causing high asthma rates in the New England - in fact the highest in the country.

Euphonious_Polemic · November 30, 2009, 11:02pm

Thanks elfkin477, but the OP is actually discussing CO2, rather than particulates or other noxious chemicals that are more normally though of as “pollution”.

This is why I discourage people from calling greenhouse gases by the term “pollution”.