Composting plastic: Sustainability and Climate Change (2)
Composting plastic: Sustainability and Climate Change (2)
It has been a challenge in the realm of WU’s climate change blogger. Sick computer, and on Tuesday I was giving a talk at the Climate Program Office when the great D.C. Earthquake came. It was a webinar, and, within a minute, savvy scientists were reporting, “5.9, Mineral, Virginia.” The earthquake, which I had successfully identified in my talk, eliminating both “train” and “terrorist attack,” led to a natural separation of those who went to doorways in the interior of the building and those who went to the large picture window and said, “cool, all the buildings are shaking.” This was followed by building evacuation, and a typical D.C. response of gridlock and people walking away from wherever they were, with perhaps, the assumption that wherever they were walking to was safer. Considering all of the fallen stones and bricks, it is quite fortunate that people were not seriously injured.
This was, of course, followed by the march of Hurricane Irene up the coast, which leads to a certain type of hurricane-anticipation hysteria. I believe that the Weather Channel and CNN amplified this hysteria with exaggerated and unwarranted statements of the lack of historical precedents for such a storm. There is perhaps an over reporting of people on beaches in a spot light saying, “It is only going to get worse.” Is this the way to get people to take these storms seriously? Anyway, the storm came ashore near my old stomping grounds on the Neuse River where I hear there were nearly 8 foot surges. This was at the end of the funnel, and it is the funneling of water up the creeks that make for the greatest flooding. It will be another billion dollar storm.
Still … I have started this blog three times and my sick computer has destroyed it. I want to get back to sustainability, composting, and those plastic cups.
Let me start by saying that I recycle. I will toss plastic cups in my luggage to take them to a place that will recycle, say, number 6 plastics. My father had me separating metals and pulling nails from miles of lumber in the 1960s for reuse. That said, I have been confused by corn-plastic, compostable plastic cups. If you take one of these cups and put it in your compost heap, well, it doesn’t compost. If you think about plastics and plastic making, then you’re not really sure what it might compost into. So you call and ask about this, and they say they were designed for commercial composting facilities, which operate at high temperature in carefully controlled environments. Then you find out that your municipality does not do such composting, so you are left with a cup that can’t be recycled, will not be composted, and to a naïve person like me seems like garbage. It’s garbage, when it could have been a recyclable number 1 plastic cup. This opens up all sorts of opportunities for greenwashing and the pursuit of irritating, good-intentioned, ineffective environmental policies and practices.
Irritating: I have been on the edge of a couple of zero-waste events in the last couple of years. One of the places where cities and counties exercise zero-waste policies is street festivals and county fairs. These are often places where there are traveling vendors, and a mix of activities that range from demolition derbies to face painting to costumed goats and prized cattle. There is eating of odd food. The point, there are a lot of people that are perhaps, not of the zero-waste jurisdiction or culture. One source of tension is those plastic cups. Let’s say they cost a little more, but let’s assume that if the event is in a place that supports zero-waste events, then people will pay a little more for their lemonade. The requirement to use compostable cups has some practical issues. They might not fit lemonade making equipment; they don’t stand up to heat; they require special stocking. They challenge some people’s view that the market price should determine what they choose. And, given where I started above, that they don’t seem so compostable, they challenge sensibilities. That list looks a lot like the range of responses to addressing the climate-change problem.
Sustainability: Sustainability is about a lot more than climate change. It is about landfills and soil management and energy use and all of those resources that we need to support ourselves. So in that sense, climate change, or let’s be precise, the emission of carbon dioxide, is a subset of sustainability. There are a lot of things that can be done in the spirit of sustainability that don’t address the emissions of carbon dioxide. For example, if you focus on energy security, some would argue that coal would address our needs long enough to get by, and hence would argue that coal is part of a sustainable energy policy – same with tar sands. Both coal and tar sands contribute to more and more carbon dioxide emissions; hence, they are in the long run agents that will lead to, for example, several meters of sea level rise. There are many initiatives in the efforts to promote sustainability, that don’t obviously help climate change. (Think about the locally grown apple kept in refrigeration for 8 months versus the apple from Australia that is not stored as long. Think about the electric car that charges up from the coal power plant.)
Composting: I’ve composted for years – let me restate that, I have composted vegetative matter for years. As a kid we did not call it composting, but we piled up mountains of leaves inside of a large fenced area and then used it gardening. It makes sense to a gardener, but it also makes sense to someone whose father was the mayor of a town and challenged with what to do with a lot of leaves and not really wanting to promote backyard bonfires on dry October days. So composting leaves and garden waste makes intuitive sense, but what about prescribed policies on composting of food waste and yard waste and, maybe, scraps of lumber? Again, if you are a city then you want to control the amount of garbage you have to deal with. Garbage is expensive – buying land, transporting it, burying it – so you start to think about what might composting do for my garbage problem. There are several ways that that leads to plastic, because plastic has infiltrated everything we do, and it lasts practically forever. Also, it comes from oil. In some sense, plastic is a lot like carbon dioxide. Perhaps thinking about plastics and waste plastic is a good way to think about carbon dioxide waste, because we can see plastic waste everywhere. But I digress.
This is a blog about climate, so let’s bring the composting and climate together. It is easy to make the casual argument that composting in your backyard is good for climate change. Or, at least, it might be. One of the climate benefits of composting in your backyard comes from not trucking the stuff away. So if you buy a gas-powered chipper or shredder, you’re likely to do away with that benefit. I’ve had a number of student projects looking at composting and climate change, especially composting food from cafeterias, and the answer is complicated. One of the big factors in the composting equation is transportation. If you have to ship the stuff many miles out of town, it’s not likely composting will help climate change. But if you can keep it nearby, have a good commercial-scale facility, and can start with a clean stream of compostable material it can help a lot. It helps a whole lot when you realize that if buried in a landfill, it usually makes methane. (To imagine how complex this gets, sometimes it is better to dump the waste in the sewer and let the sewage experts deal with it, and often, the best thing to do is to burn it for fuel. So it is not an easy calculation and decision.)
So back to those plastic cups. I try to be a responsible blogger so I did a little research. I hope I did enough research to not make a fool of myself. I put some links to articles down at the end of blog. I want to line up some conclusions, but, first, the observation that most of the work investigating plastics in waste streams that I found was coming from Northern Europe, China, and Africa. OK some conclusions. I was right that some of those plastic cups don’t break down in home composting. Home composting is simply not active enough to break down those cups. At best they become some sort of plastic sand. But other plastics and compressed papers break down pretty well even at home. In commercial composting, where there is a lot of stirring and a lot of biodegrading going on, they breakdown pretty well, and they don’t do anything bad to the compost. And at street festivals and fairs, if there are compostable cups, then when people throw away all of their eating stuff in the same garbage, which people are prone to do, then the compostable cups (and forks and plates) clean up the stream for the much larger mass of food waste. Therefore at big events, cafeterias, and restaurants, the compostable cups can have a large impact on waste management – but it does require an easy and visible and clearly marked place to put compostable garbage.
Above I said that zero-waste and compostable cups can challenge one’s sensibility. The effort I have gone through here is more effort than the average person is going to exert to worry about their garbage. I am sure that some of the people I know who find the zero-waste policy, perhaps, silly, would find that it makes sense when you think about the stream of compostable material made possible by compostable cups. But as often presented, in the absence of information, in the spirit of prescriptive policy that is “good” in some sense, it serves to discredit the whole culture of sustainability. It poses “good” and suggests that what others are doing is “bad.” And inevitably here in the good ol’ USA of 2011, it becomes a matter of politics, of culture.
But this is a blog on climate change. What about the compostable cups and climate change? So if the impact of the compostable cup on climate change is measured by its carbon footprint, then the difference between the compostable cup and old-fashioned plastic cup is hard to determine. If a locality is set up with a good commercial-grade composting facility that is not far away, then the impacts can be substantial. In one of my students’ projects, composting food waste from University of Michigan cafeterias was the equivalent of removing 100 cars from the road. In this situation, the compostable cup cleans up the compost stream and allows the food to be composted. But, in any case, what is best for the climate is to use metal utensils and washable plates, and to wash the dishes. And if a business or town hands out compostable cups WITHOUT a composting plan and facility, they mess up their recycling program as the cups get mixed into the recycling stream.
It’s never easy. I am often asked what individuals can do about climate change. It is “be efficient,” use compact fluorescents, composting and recycling can be good, insulate, insulate, insulate. Sometimes I say quit being an eco-tourist. In the end though, assuming we consume as we view our prerogative to consume, we must de-carbonize our energy. We must quit making so much of our stuff to be disposed. All of the little steps are important; they might raise our awareness; they might make us feel better about our consumption; they buy us a little time – maybe, but they cannot solve that big problem of burning coal, oil, and natural gas to supply our wealth. As long as we are not thinking about our energy use and our energy waste, we are not really addressing the zero-waste and sustainability issues of climate change.
r
Razza et al., Compostable Cutlery …
Song et al., Biodegradable and compostable plastics …
Hopewell et al., Plastics recycling …
Mohee and Unmar, Determining biodegradability …
Rockstrom et al., A safe operating space for humanity
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index
Yup, Skyepony rocks. Does what I want to do better than I can.
A lot of this depends on if you use lampshapes or not. The reflected light is pretty 'natural' - at least I know that I have to check to see what type of bulb needs replacing if i can't see it directly.
But think it is moot anyway: I think CF lights will do the way of the dodo, the denialist and the incandescent in a few years anyway. LEDs are almost forever and even more efficient.
Yes, I agree. Sky has always presented a great attitude and is a class act that stands head and shoulders above most. I have never seen her get in a wrinkle or become offensive towards anyone.
You are a truly a class act Sky! Thank you.
It might make the Sahara more fertile in time. It will also make Siberia capable of supporting agriculture, although farming Siberia would be a huge logistical exercise to create the infrastructure and populate the region with settlers. The peaty soil would also have to be limed to improve its fertility.
A very small upside when you think of all the formerly fertile regions that will no longer be suitable for farming due to increased aridity (Texas?, Somalia?) and all the environmental refugees that will result from this.
What works for me is:
compost=yard plant materials (softer parts) + water + sunshine on outside of composter.
Subsequently, by "conserving" natural resources from my property, and a little crop rotation with beans/peas (legumes), I don't have to spend money on fertilizer. I do still buy some Sun Chips (salt ok since I make most of my own food from scratch sans NaCl). Oh...less "packaging waste" by making most of my own foods (e.g. soup, chili, bread, cinnamon rolls to die for....literally! :)
PATENT PENDING!
NASA Top Climate Scientist Arrested on White House Protest
Alongside actress Daryl Hannah, religious leaders, and dozens of eco-activists arrested Monday outside the White House protesting a planned oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico stood an unlikely partner -- NASA's top climate scientist and government official James Hansen.
Hansen, a controversial and highly vocal proponent of the argument that man's actions have dramatically affected the planet's climate, is the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- a position for which he earns a $180,000 taxpayer-paid salary.
He has been arrested at least three times now in public protests over climate change and global warming.
Before his latest arrest Monday outside of the White House, Hansen used a microphone to implore President Obama to act "for the sake of your children and grandchildren," the SF Gate reported.
As a government employee, Hansen is essentially taking pot shots at his own employer.
Yet Ed Campion, a spokesman for parent organization Goddard Space Flight Center -- a Greenbelt, Md. facility that manages the space agency's unmanned scientific aircraft -- told FoxNews.com that Hansen was on personal leave for a day for the protests.
"The agency doesn't comment on personnel matters other than to say that Hansen was on his own personal time and wasn't acting in official capacity as a NASA employee," Campion told FoxNews.com.
It was unclear whether Hansen chose to be arrested on a vacation day or a personal day.
David Roberts, an writer with environmental blog Grist, questioned whether it was smart of Hansen to protest in this fashion.
"I know I'm not supposed to say this, but James Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist *terribly*. All influence lost," the green blogger tweeted out prior to the arrest.
Hansen's arrest came on day 10 of a two-week sit-in to protest a Canadian company%u2019s proposal to construct a $7 billion, 1,702-mile pipeline to pump heavy crude oil from mines in Canada to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Prior to the protest, Hansen told environmental blog SolveClimate News of his plans to join the protest and risk arrest, because the threat the pipeline poses to the climate is too great to ignore.
"If [Obama] chooses the dirty needle, it's game over because it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing, like the other well-oiled, coal-fired politicians with no real intention of solving the addiction."
Canada is going to sell its dope, if it can find a buyer," Hansen said.
In June, a In a lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., claimed Hansen receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated -- failing to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regulations.
Hansen has been arrested at least twice before in protests over climate issues, in 2009 and 2010.
Link
..
Posted July 15, 2011
We experienced a record in South Pole weather last month, with May 2011 being the coldest May since the Navy began keeping records in 1957. The average temperature was -62.6C/-80.7F. The previous record was from 1989. On May 27, the temperature reached -75.2 C/-103.4F,
Link
Whatever happened to Hope and Change? It took Hansen
4 years to see the charade, well it is said many educated folks don't have a lick of common sense.
Bout freaking time! BTW my tunnels can make more of those cold records if you want?
I totally agree. I look at all the Republicans and Tea Party politicians and wonder why anyone believes in them. It's clear they couldn't less one way or another about the issues, they just poll sampled to find out what the waves were like and are trying to catch a wave into the presidency. Many Dems as well, I just think Dems are saved by the fact that their positions are naturally less hypocritical.
But it does make you wonder, who is creating the waves? Take generic frustration at economy, powerlessness, etc. and channel through hate into... what? Who does the channeling?
I think with global warming, there is some of that going on. Liberals are disgusted at how hypocritical, greedy and un-patriotic the right is and global warming becomes a touchstone for all things evil on the right. Dem politicians follow up on that. So far, the only people being put forward as puppet masters for that movement are scientist, who, as the article notes, don't make good activists. This lead to the conclusion that it is a natural movement even if accelerated by blaming the right (in a vicious circle).
Very well put. Grist has an excellent piece today on just how far off the mark some people are, and how willing they are to twist and lie and deceive. Here's a snippet:
"Keep in mind that the only major climate policy advanced by the left that's even reached the level of national debate is cap-and-trade, a market-based policy first instituted under the first President Bush. That's what Rich Lowry refers to as 'sweeping carbon controls that fail any cost-benefit analysis,' what Kevin D. Williamson refers to as the policies of the 'environmentalist-anti-capitalist green coalition,' and what David Harsanyi, attempting to win the purple rhetoric award, calls a 'massive Luddite undertaking that inhibits technological growth by turning back the clock, undoing footprints, forcing technology that doesn't exist, banning products that do, and badgering consumers who have not adhered to the plan through all kinds of punishment.'
"Anyone who followed the climate bill fiasco will find this numbingly familiar. There was seemingly no ceiling to the claims conservatives could make about the economic impact of climate policy. $500 billion lost a year! No, a gazillion! Three million jobs lost! No, 20 million! ALL the jobs!"
Link
If that's the best you can do, maybe you should find another hobby.
Sea Level is Rising
Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.
Annual averages of global sea level. Red: sea-level since 1870; Blue: tide gauge data; Black: based on satellite observations. The inset shows global mean sea level rise since 1993 - a period over which sea level rise has accelerated. More information: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise (USGCRP) and Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising
While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.
Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955.
Link
COMPRENDE?
Remember that article by Dr. Roy Spencer that was published in Remote Sensing a few weeks ago? You know, the one where Spencer once again showed his lack of actual credibility, but which the desperate PDI repeated loudly and often as "proof" that CO2 wasn't causing warming? Remember that one?
Well, geez, the Editor-in-Chief of that publication, Dr. Wolfgang Wagner, has resigned, and he has some not-so-kind parting words for Spencer in particular, and denialists in general:
"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper%u2019s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011, the main author%u2019s personal homepage, the story 'New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism' published by Forbes, and the story 'Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?' published by Fox News, to name just a few. Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.
- - - - - - - - - -
...the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief%u2015to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously
So. Now can we get some apologies from those who pinned all their hopes and dreams on the Spencer/Braswell
paperpiece of garbage? Or will denialists now all-too-predictably turn on Wagner, a man they absolutely adored up until this morning?EDIT: just checked "WUWT", and see Spencer "strenuously objects" to Wagner's letter, and "stands by" his piece of anti-science blather. Imagine my surprise... ;-)
Here ya go~
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
So--no retraction from you? You don't wish to take this opportunity to distance yourself from your support of the debunked Spencer paper? That's fine. But do you at least have anything substantive to add?
So let's see here,,,,
Was the paper retracted by the journal? Nope
Do they intend to retract the paper? Nope
Has the paper been debunked? Nope
You are simply not telling the truth once again.
Symptomatic of OCD. Shame on you.
"Update, 5:30 p.m. Eastern, 9/2/11: Remote Sensing’s editor Wagner tells us the journal is not considering retracting the study.
No, neither the publisher nor I have so far considered this. On the one hand, as I wrote in the editorial, formally everything was correct with the review. On the other hand we believe that it is much better to treat this issue in an open and scientific manner. Therefore the publisher is already working on inviting the science community to respond to this paper."
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/e ditor-of-remote-sensing-resigns-over-controversial -climate-paper-co-author-stands-by-it/
Or is there some sort of official protocol which must be observed to meet the criteria of a retraction that we should be told about?
Grasp enough straws and you might just keep your head from going under.
Where do see any disagreement? When you look at the time frame being used by the lower chart and overlay it on top of the same time frame in the upper chart, I do not see any deviations. What is it that you are seeing? I ask because I am not a trained professional reading charts.
Both charts are dated 9/2. Yet the lower graph shows 2011 still descending and also shows current ice extent within a hair of 2007 on the same date. The upper graph shows 2011 leveling out and even moving up and a much greater difference between 2011 and 2007with that difference increasing.
They both can't be correct.
I see what you are pointing out. The line from ~August 31, 2011 through September 2, 2011 show a slight difference while the previous dates seem to be more in line with each other.
The top graphic is from arctic-roos.org and the bottom graphic is from nsidc.org. What I would suggest is contacting both organizations and see what they say on this difference. We are only talking about the last 2-3 days of each chart, in 2011, and there should be an explanation for this difference. Did the Arctic ice area start expanding since August 31,2011? That is not what is indicated by any previous years shown. All of the other years sampled have indicated that Arctic ice continues to lose area beyond September 2. The question to ask is, what is the actual Arctic ice extent from August 31, 2011 - September 2, 2011. When this question is answered, so will be your question.
My, how quickly you are learning to read what you choose to see. I suggest we wait another week or so and see how they compare. Usually reality trumps all opinions.
You are graping at straws. Has the paper been debunked? YES
Read teh articles on it. It ignored the evidence to the contrary and didn't answer any criticisms. One flawed paper by a right wing nutter emplyed by a right wing nutter organization is the best you have?
Do you have any proof that the "There is no global warming" theory is true?
Here, educate yourself a bit more on the subject before you leap.
Comment On The Resignation of Wolfgang Wagner As Editor-In-Chief Of The Journal “Remote Sensing” In Response To The Publication Of Spencer And Braswell - By R.P.Sr. (2011)
It's due to the way the data is processed between the agencies and dependent on which satellite they use.
Some agencies use algorithms which account for melt ponds on top of sea ice and count it as ice. Others 'see' it as open water. Some satellites have better resolution than others, some agencies use 2/3-day running means to smooth the trend, others use a direct daily reading.
So while there's small differences in the way the data in processed the charts pretty much line up in the long run.
Best I can do? Perhaps you should write the author of the link(s). What have you done besides attack the messenger? Talk about grasping at straws. I suppose that's all an AGW proponent can do these days. Their entire straw house is falling down around them. The more actual science is performed, the more it can be seen that this CO2 nonsense is nothing but a fraud.
Thank you, Sullivan. I knew that there would be an answer that would be much better than what I could provide. I was wiling to wait to see what is the actual ice extent for those 2-3 days that are in question. I appreciate your clarifying this, for us. +100
Where is there ANY scientific evidence that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? Pick a planet. You do not have to use Earth as a reference point.
You talk about attacking the messenger but, you have no qualms about actually threatening the person. You are truly a class act J.
You've got to be kidding. The paper has been rfuted all over the place.
Really? So the natural greenhouse effect doesn't warm the Earth's surface by 33 degrees C and CO2 doesn't contribute to this? That's a truly staggering claim. How did you work this out? If you're right about this, it's an amazing revelation that will completely rewrite the textbooks on atmospheric physics.
What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is caused by burning of fossil fuels and what percentage is caused by natural release from decomposition of carbon based life? Do you know this answer? If so please supply.
After you supply that answer, ask yourself the following question: If 50% of burning of fossil fuels were stopped, how much reduction in atmospheric CO2 would we have. Then ask how much that reduction would have on the greenhouse affect and temperatures.
Oh, here, let me answer my own question. Link
That site is full of phony numbers. For one thing he claims that our CO2 emissions are just 6 billion tons a year. The IEA says over 30 billion tons from energy consumption alone.
Whoever runs that site (it doesn't say) also puts up fake figures for natural additions to CO2 and then falsely attributes them to the Department of Energy.
You just posted a bunch of hooey.
Well, to be fair, ha says 6 billion tons of carbon in CO2.
However, there is the usual attempt to belittle man's contribution by quoting figures from the carbon cycle, as if that's relevant, which it isn't. It's plain dishonesty and shows how far they'll sink to propagandise their unsupportable position
The fact that nature's annual input and drawdown of CO2 dwarfs man's input is totally irrelevant. The carbon cycle is in balance, with no net contribution from the environment.
However, man's contribution has increased the amount of CO2 in the air by 40% above pre-industrial levels and the amount of methane by 140% and this has warmed the planet by 0.8C.
I have stated, many times, that I am neither a scientist nor am I a mathematician. I can only offer to you my thoughts concerning your questions.
You do not seem to dispute that mankind's activities, through industrialization, has added to the observed CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere. Your question is more based on how our contributions towards atmospheric CO2 concentrations have accounted for the rapid rise, historically speaking, in today's observed atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I would consider this to be a very reasonable question to ask.
You should factor in that mankind's contributions towards atmospheric CO2 concentrations are also amplified by mankind's partial destruction of Earth's natural carbon sinks. Mankind's deforestation attempts would be one example of such a carbon sink. You should also consider that a chain reaction begins when temperature rise will also release trapped carbon back into the atmosphere, along with other more potent greenhouse gases.
There have been no known astrological or geological events to occur during the industrialization era that would account for the atmospheric CO2 concentrations that are being observed today.
How much can mankind's contributions towards atmospheric CO2 concentrations effect climate change? I would try this, as a thought experiment. Pure water, at sea level, will be observed as either a liquid or a solid based upon 1 degree F difference in temperature. This seems to be miniscule difference, does it not? After all, we are only talking about H2O here, are we not? Yet this 1 degree of temperature change changes the observed physical characteristics of pure water at sea level.
"If 50% of burning of fossil fuels were stopped, how much reduction in atmospheric CO2 would we have." - Atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not rise or fall with the flip of a switch. Should we reduce the amount of CO2 that we contribute to the atmosphere by 100% tomorrow, then the atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to rise, for a period of time. Atmospheric CO2 levels would begin to drop once the introduced CO2 levels are less than the absorbed CO2, though carbon sinks, in the atmosphere. The carbon sinks would not act instantaneously either. The carbon sinks would require decades to remove the excess CO2 levels from the atmosphere. Absorption rates being what they are. This, however, is not the discussion. There are those that do not only want to maintain current levels of mankind induced CO2 but, to actually increase it beyond today's levels. All in the name of progress. Somehow, I do not see this as progress, on any level. I am able to explain this thought further, should you desire for me to do so.
This is what my untrained mind tells me. What does your untrained mind tell you?
I have no disagreement with most of what you say, but I am reminded of a high school experiment where we super saturated water with sugar, I believe, until that last grain causes an instantaneous crystalization of the solution. Now you might argue that adding CO2 to the atmosphere as we have might bring us to the brink of doom at some point in the future, but it could be that the required amounts of CO2 are far greater than some think and we are at a point equivalent to just those first few grains of sugar.
What I do know is that the atmosphere has had far greater amounts of CO2 in it in other times and the Earth was at lower temperatures and it has had far less and been at higher temperatures.
I also believe that all that algae and plankton in the oceans and their condition can radically affect CO2 levels and that mankind"s contribution to CO2 is small in comparison to natural contributions.
Last of all I know that the costs that global warming alarmists want us to absorb in order to avoid what they believe might happen make Congress's current deficit expenditures look like pocket change. This makes me want to know with certainty what is really happening.
I will bite. What do you consider would be enough evidence for you to "know with certainty"?
Virtually all scientists an meteorologists accept that there has been warming over the last couple hundred years. However, there are thousands of scientists and meteorologists who don't accept mans actions as the cause. Information that would change their minds is what I am looking for.
You will note that the standard tactic on this board when credible "anti" evidence is presented is to attack the credibility or character of the presenter or just discount the evidence or even ignore the post. That doesn't work for me.
What astrological or geological events have occurred during this time that would explain the amount of warming that we are now observing? I do not know of any.
The climate is like a pendulam swinging back and forth.
I don't disagree that there have been higher temperatures than right now in the past. If we were at the end of hte swing, I wouldn't worry.
However, NEVER has the pendulum swung so fast before. That implies that the peak will be much higher than ever before.
Your argument is like the guy who jumps out the 10th floor and as he passes the 2nd, says, well, it's going ok so far!
I don't understand why deniers consistently accept information and statements that are demonstrably false.
BTW the question martinitony asks in comment 88 is easy to answer. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were about 285 ppm. Last year it averaged 390 ppm. That means that mankind has increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 37%. We have more than doubled the amount of methane in the atmosphere and increased by many-fold the flux of NOx gases into the atmosphere.
Seems silly for deniers to post and support fake figures.
www.judithcurry.com has some great discussion of the Spencer article
Here is a quote from it
We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024.
False. We have increased CO2 by 37%, not 3%. The whole article is full of stupid lies like that.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonC ycle/
Have fun
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural?
bonus
Carbon cycle questions
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index