EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:53 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:07 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Any thoughts on this study which shows that strong natural sources of CO2 emissions from geological sources?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2 ... 1991.shtml

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:23 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
The extract of the study you linked does not seem aimed at the layperson (What is a NECB estimate? It seems to assume that the reader would know that.) however I think its safe to say the rise in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution is not due to geological sources.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:25 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Geologic emission are well known, but the paper is correct in that such sources would make the estimates for a particular region more difficult.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:29 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui ... sequence=1

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:30 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
spot1234 wrote:
The extract of the study you linked does not seem aimed at the layperson (What is a NECB estimate? It seems to assume that the reader would know that.) however I think its safe to say the rise in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution is not due to geological sources.

Image



NECB = Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:01 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Thanks guys for your input.

I would agree that most of the increase in CO2 is probably due to anthropogenic sources.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:48 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
don`t forget the loss of carbon sinks such as desert growth and loss of tree mass and a warmer ocean not holding as much of the gases that water absorbs. I found it funny that they use the term "geological sources" when that is what petrochemicals are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:14 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 154
Snowy,

I think I will need you to tell me if this is the point:-

That the amount of CO2 produced naturally is often higher than previously thought.

That this means that the increase in CO2 could be due to other things than industry and fossil fuel use, although probably not.

That since there is this ability of geology to produce lots of CO2 then nature must be used to the occaisional increase in the stuff.

Is that right????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Snowy,

I think I will need you to tell me if this is the point:-

That the amount of CO2 produced naturally is often higher than previously thought.

That this means that the increase in CO2 could be due to other things than industry and fossil fuel use, although probably not.

That since there is this ability of geology to produce lots of CO2 then nature must be used to the occaisional increase in the stuff.

Is that right????


No, In this one area where there is high geothermal activity the estimated emissions were potentially skewed by the release of carbon by the geothermal vents. This is not evidence of all locations, but could be extrapolated to those areas with higher geothermal activity.

The level of the geothermal release was not indicating any natural emission factor upsetting the global calculations, but it was affecting the balance estiamtes of the locality.


Nature has handled a fairly significant portion of even the human released carbon, but that has started to affect the pH of the oceans and may be reaching the point where less and less can be natuatlly dealt with by the sinks.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:23 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2290
Location: Central Colorado
The consistent percentage of average annual volcanic emissions of CO2 are 1/140th of the total. Of the other "natural" CO2 sources, termites are the greatest at about 1/100th. Human HGHG emissions account for from 75% to 97% of emissions. The study only "confounds" on the local level.
The long term natural CO2 output was generally kept in check by the annual absorption by trees, and plankton, along with other vegetation and natural sinks. It is in the little 3ppm up and down seasonal CO2 variation.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:13 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
I haven't read the source yet, but have got the summation from reading the posts. WHat I have been conserned about with our robust emissions of co2 is that we are vulnerable to the lag effect of earth emitted co2 the same as that gave us the Holocene. The oceans and land will emit more co2 over time just as the 800 year lag of co2.

I tend to think this is already set in motion 800 to 1000 years out. In a sense we may have forced our future generations to pull co2 from the atmosphere and bury it for protection 10 centuries out.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group