Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CO2 release out of control says scientist—(Carbon capture and sequestration is needed)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 11:28 AM
Original message
CO2 release out of control says scientist—(Carbon capture and sequestration is needed)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10572877

CO2 release out of control says scientist

4:00AM Monday May 18, 2009
By Eloise Gibson



After first suggesting there could be negative effects from pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 1957, the award-winning American scientist - who was in New Zealand last week to speak at a past climates symposium - has turned his attention to taking carbon out of the air and storing it.

He believes the world has no chance of getting CO2 emissions under control in time to avoid dangerous global warming.

He wants urgent research done to find ways to tuck atmospheric CO2 away until after human production of it has peaked.

For New Zealand, he says, this could mean letting the Australians take care of it. Dr Broecker is a fan of a method developed by his friend and workmate at Columbia University, Dr Klaus Lackner, who has found a way to catch carbon using special plastic fibres attached to units the size of shipping containers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. Planting More Trees is Another Way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Planting trees probably won't hurt
Edited on Mon May-18-09 01:27 PM by OKIsItJustMe
I'm a big fan of planting trees.

However, how fast did you want to lower atmospheric carbon levels?

The last time the ecosystem lowered atmospheric CO₂ levels from about 280ppm to about 180ppm it took about 100,000 years.


(Let's call it about 1ppm/millennium.)

Current levels are above 380ppm, and they're increasing at more than 1ppm/year.


Some scientists say we need to get levels http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126">below 350ppm and soon. “If the present overshoot of this target CO₂ is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.”

Assuming we stop all of our emissions immediately, and assuming we had a fully intact ecosystem, that would take roughly 30,000 years.

By all means, plant trees, but, please, don't fool yourself…
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fotoware58 Donating Member (473 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Thinning forests
Sustainable forest management will sequester more carbon for much longer periods of time. Planting trees you'll never harvest is inviting catastrophic fire. Some people want to limit and tax ALL sources of man-made carbon EXCEPT for forest fires, which they flip-flop on and say we need MORE of them. Remember, that burning a thick forest can result in 300 tons of carbon per acre to go into the upper atmosphere, away from plants that could benefit from the CO2. Al Gore says that thinning projects are not politically-sustainable but, he offered no science against using Federal biomass as "renewable energy" sources.

How many more years of enhancing mega-sized forest fires? The Bush Administration, The Obama Administration and most all environmental groups agree that we need to burn more forests, despite its number one status as a carbon source in the west.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. that's all fine and well, but will it really affect the positive feedback
loop of simultaneous methane release? The CO2 warms up the atmosphere just enough to start releasing the much more reactive methane deposits, the release of which increases global warming causing more CO2 and methane release, until we get back to an early Eocene level of atmospheric carbon.

I think too many models fail to factor the methane release (which we are already seeing early stages of in the melting of arctic permafrost) to be able to say that simply sequestering carbon is going to have any real effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. OK, so here's the way I look at it…
Edited on Mon May-18-09 02:48 PM by OKIsItJustMe
What will happen if we don't try to do something about CO₂ levels?

Is the appropriate response to throw up our hands and say, "We can't do anything about this mess, so let's not even try."

There's a great deal of question about just how bad the methane releases currently are.
http://www.csiro.au/news/Methane-clathrates-findings.html
Greenland’s ‘good news’ methane finding
Reference: 09/62

Ice core research has revealed that a vast, potential source of the potent greenhouse gas, methane, is more stable in a warming world than previously thought.

24 April 2009

Based on international research published today in Science, the finding includes Australian contributions from CSIRO and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).



“The result is a good news outcome for climate scientists monitoring greenhouse gases and investigating the likely sources of methane in a warming world,” says CSIRO’s Dr David Etheridge, from the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research who helped show how the air could be extracted from polar ice to measure past methane changes and identify their causes.

“There are vast stores of methane clathrates beneath the ocean and in permafrost and there is evidence that millions of years ago release from these storages caused significant climate change, although none in more recent times.



“We know that emissions of methane are increasing now and that some sources might emit even more with warming, causing a positive climate feedback, or amplification. But this finding suggests that the clathrate source is less susceptible than recently feared,” Dr Smith says.



Imagine this scenario. 50 years from now, scientists realize that if we'd simply begun capturing CO₂, we might have turned this thing around, but we didn't and now, it's simply too late…
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying we shouldn't do it.
It can't hurt, and just might help. And the sooner, the better. I hope the article you cite is correct - it's the best news I've seen on it in a long time - but stable conditions in Greenland doesn't necessarily equate to stable conditions in Siberia.

I just fear we have already hit the tipping point, and all we can do now is try to mitigate the damage, not stop it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I share your fears
So, let's mitigate to the best of our abilities! (Who knows!? We might actually “save the planet!”)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tdavis Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. interesting
interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fotoware58 Donating Member (473 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-21-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Mitigation paradox?
The exposure of this paradox in the preservationist camp should be at the forefront in today's world. Our forests are overstocked at a time when water is becoming more and more precious. We already have millions of acres of dead trees from bark beetles and drought yet, environmentalists still refuse to allow thinning projects using the latest science. We have millions of acres burned and billions of dollars in damages and suppression costs yet, the powers that be are hell-bent on burning even more. Are agendas more important than entire forests? Is political control more important than saving the forests?

Sadly, we'll see more of the status quo in a new age of forest destruction through catastrophic fires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Someone better tell our Senate
I don't think they've heard the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC