The '500 Pound Gorilla In The Room' that NOBODY really wishes to confront:

7 Billion, and rising, Human Beings on this Planet.

What is the solution?

How about we let the young decide maybe? :) I'm up for that! After all, until we've worked out how to make it possible for the super rich to live forever, they are the ones for whom we "hold this planet in trust" so to speak, are they not? :) If we've raised them well they might see the benefits of having a few older people knocking about the place. Maybe even some ill or disabled ones to keep in touch with the concept of having "humanity" and keeping the word "humane" in the dictionary. (Imagine the environmental impact of a re-print!)

Or we could just get rid of our weak, sick and disabled like we do with animals. That's most of the people I love gone. I won't want to hang around after that, so that's another one less. That'd be a start! Especially once extrapolated world wide. Natural disasters often take out large swathes of the poor - so as long as we (sorry that should read "you guys" - after all I won't be here :)) don't mount any relief efforts - there's potential for some healthy decimation there. War is always a good one - as long as a high percentage of returning soldiers are given vasectomies/sterilizations.

Not sure the gorilla I've confronted is more than about 200 pounds but I think we're on target...

Or there's a more civilised approach. Wherever living standards have risen, birth rates have fallen (except perhaps amongst those of the Catholic faith - but I think even there family sizes have shrunk over recent years). I must say I have been a little startled to discover how much of an anathema that is to so many - so not sure whether that concept will ever get off the ground... :( Back to our earlier options then is it? :)

Increasing longevity is a big factor in rising population. It's also becoming a factor in holding back the young in becoming economically active. Could that be one of the reasons why discussing the 500 pound gorilla in the room is not being confronted?

Anyway - that's just some musings from my brain :) I love all the age groups we're blessed with on this planet! And caring about our young, sick, disabled and poor makes us better people I think. Hope everyone has a lovely weekend :)

Let's postulate a future.

Rising CO2, and other gasses, overwhelm the eco-system. Industrialization collapses. Without Industrialization, Mass Starvation.

Because of Mass Starvation: Pandemics sweep the Human Race (Starvation = Low Immunity).

Human Population decreases by the Billion's.

The few Humans left live in harmony with the Planet.

However, being Human, we again start the Industrialization Process (We never learn). Reach the present situation again, and...

Hi Clyde :) How are you?

The few humans left will be living in harmony with a very different planet - where trees are contributing to low level ozone, and where microbes, parasites and bacteria are flourishing - oh sorry - what am I talking about? :) that's not that different to now really is it? I wish them well of course - but you are right - we're not very good at learning from the mistakes of others - nor sadly from our own mistakes :( Add to the fact that the neurotoxin methylmercury arising from the burning of fossil fuels is already impacting negatively on the IQ of the very young. So our future survivors may well lack the "intelligence" to start a new industrial revolution. Better perhaps that we don't just mark time till the worst happens? But a nice example to play with - hypothetically speaking of course :)

Let's postulate a future.

Rising CO2, and other gasses, overwhelm the eco-system. Industrialization collapses. Without Industrialization, Mass Starvation.

Because of Mass Starvation: Pandemics sweep the Human Race (Starvation = Low Immunity).

Human Population decreases by the Billion's.

The few Humans left live in harmony with the Planet.

However, being Human, we again start the Industrialization Process (We never learn). Reach the present situation again, and...

It will have to be a long way into the future before there is any coal to be easily found for them to start an industrial revolution.

Let's postulate a future.

Rising CO2, and other gasses, overwhelm the eco-system. Industrialization collapses. Without Industrialization, Mass Starvation.

Because of Mass Starvation: Pandemics sweep the Human Race (Starvation = Low Immunity).

Human Population decreases by the Billion's.

The few Humans left live in harmony with the Planet.

However, being Human, we again start the Industrialization Process (We never learn). Reach the present situation again, and...

It will have to be a long way into the future before there is any coal to be easily found for them to start an industrial revolution.

Before there was coal... there was wood...

Witness the island of Cyprus. It got totally deforested for the wood to fuel the smelting of its 'namesake' metal ore... Copper. Several thousand years ago... Finding the fuel won't be a problem. Now finding the other raw materials might, but then humanity is a clever, inventive species... Not too much in the wisdom department, but definitely clever and inventive.

Let's postulate a future.

Rising CO2, and other gasses, overwhelm the eco-system. Industrialization collapses. Without Industrialization, Mass Starvation.

Because of Mass Starvation: Pandemics sweep the Human Race (Starvation = Low Immunity).

Human Population decreases by the Billion's.

The few Humans left live in harmony with the Planet.

However, being Human, we again start the Industrialization Process (We never learn). Reach the present situation again, and...

It will have to be a long way into the future before there is any coal to be easily found for them to start an industrial revolution.

Well...

Being the Smartest/Stupidest Creatures on this Planet: We WILL find a way. :)

:) we'd have to re-invent the paper bag first of course :)

The industrial revolution did not start until they changed from charcoal to coal to process iron.

This transition included going from hand production methods to machines,

That's basically what the Industrial Revolution stands for.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Are you saying that Climate Change is normal and cyclical?

Not anymore...

....no, for it actually is.

... The fastest, biggest, baddest, fastest spike our planet has ever suffered.


Rapid change that is far too fast for evolution to evolve around...

That ain't "natural"...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

I don't know so much Martin, for my rose bush has adapted quite well to it,
has produced a nice array of buds....what a surprise to come home to....
buds on the rose bush at least one month earlier than normally.

I'm far more worried about pollution than I am regarding climate change/global
warming where the UK is concerned. Pollution was the cause of this latest bout of
smog experienced down south here just as it was with the very bad smogs of
the 1940's & 50's. Now I'm wondering if there is a connection here between
today and back all those years ago. For it is known that during the 1930's,
40's and very early 1950's we experienced a warming phase in the UK. We have
experienced this same phenomena again over the past several years. Come early
1950's things started to cool down again, it will be interesting to see if
the same know happens again today. It may very well not but something though to
keep an eye out for. Hence, did the smogs all those years back end purely
because we switched to smokeless coal or was it because we went in to a cooling
phase or was it a combination of the two.

Now the French have put their hands up and said, "We are causing our smogs
because we have too many vehicles burning diesel". No doubt the reason why
we are having these minor smogs in London too. Expect control over this element
at some stage in the not too distant future here and abroad. Yet knowing our
luck, just as they implement diesel controlling measures so we enter a ruddy
cooling down down phase hence we wont know for sure what combated the smogs.
Was it the control over diesel, was it the cooling down phase or was it a
combination of the two? What ever the outcome, just controlling the consumption
of diesel will have very positive benefits for us all with regards to our
health all round.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Let's postulate a future.

Rising CO2, and other gasses, overwhelm the eco-system. Industrialization collapses. Without Industrialization, Mass Starvation.

Because of Mass Starvation: Pandemics sweep the Human Race (Starvation = Low Immunity).

Human Population decreases by the Billion's.

The few Humans left live in harmony with the Planet.

However, being Human, we again start the Industrialization Process (We never learn). Reach the present situation again, and...

You forgot the part where the disaster gives rise to WW3.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

... The fastest, biggest, baddest, fastest spike our planet has ever suffered.

Dat Be Funny. Dats wat I Accept. Funny.

Climate Change Now Eats Planes and makes 'em Disappear.

The Southron Ocean Parallelogram is Hungry.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Really? Is this the way to go?...


We should give up trying to save the world from climate change, says James Lovelock

The scientist and inventor James Lovelock claims we should stop trying to save the planet from global warming and instead retreat to climate controlled cities...

... James Lovelock, who first detected CFCs in the atmosphere and proposed the Gaia hypotheses, claims society should retreat to ‘climate-controlled cities’ and give up on large expanses of land which will become [un]inhabitable.

Lovelock, who has just published his latest book A Rough Ride To The Future, claims we should be ‘strengthening our defences and making a sustainable retreat.’

“We’re reaching an age in history where you can no longer predict the future with any hope of success. “We should give up vainglorious attempts to save the world. ...


Really? We should all just roll over and die and let the polluters pollute most of us to Hell?!

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Does he say who gets to live in those cities? Sounds eletist to me. Kind of like the movie Elysium.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Does he say who gets to live in those cities? Sounds eletist to me. Kind of like the movie Elysium.

Yes... it does sound like it doesn't it? ... we'll get stuck with taking their trash away so it doesn't spoil their view. And would the earth's wildlife get their own safe environments? Doubt it.



I'm not suggesting this as a solution folks... :) at least I don't think I am - though it is Monday... and an apocalyptic view does sometimes pop into my head before my first coffee :) So please don't get mad :) cos I do sort of like people too :)

That is a bit chalk and cheese.
Humans are one species, insects are an entire class.

If all mammals disappeared from the Earth, i think that may have a larger effect.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Hello everyone :) How are you all? The following are excerpts taken from a blog regarding the latest UN meeting on Climate change. I'm going to try dig out something other than blogs - but was interested on everyone's views with regard to the following two extracts;

(the link if you want it is: NPR blog

Have inserted bold text for the bits I'm referring to:

Reversing that trend would require a huge shift toward energy sources like wind, solar or nuclear power, plus a slew of other changes, like increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and slowing deforestation.

Why are they not looking to end deforestation, and even to reverse it?

Another part of the report addresses so-called "geo-engineering" technologies that could possibly manipulate the atmosphere and artificially cool the planet.

"It's quite controversial. It's controversial among environmental advocates, it's controversial among scientists, and it's certainly controversial among governments," says Stavins. "But research is clearly needed."

THAT is one of the scariest things I've ever heard. Volcanic eruptions do things like that...

Perhaps I'm being paranoid - but this sounds like a license for polluters to keep on polluting in the meantime. Please tell me I'm wrong...


Okay - late edit: Final Draft won't be available till tomorrow. This is their opening statement... http://mitigation2014.org/

Concluding four years of intense scientific collaboration by hundreds of authors from around the world, this report responds to the request of the world's governments for a comprehensive, objective and policy neutral assessment of the current scientific knowledge on mitigating climate change. The report has been extensively reviewed by experts and governments to ensure quality and comprehensiveness. The quintessence of this work, the Summary for Policymakers, has been approved line by line by member governments at the 12th Session of IPCC WG III in Berlin, Germany (7-11 April 2014).

That is a bit chalk and cheese.
Humans are one species, insects are an entire class.

If all mammals disappeared from the Earth, i think that may have a larger effect.

Hi Simonator! How are you? We're not renown for keeping insect numbers down - other than perhaps the ones that benefit us ;/ but many mammals do - so chalk and cheese maybe - but perhaps better balanced? :) (I'm still not advocating it as a solution however) :)

Hi Anniet,

Very interesting post.

Here is another link to discussion of the WG3 report.
http://sandrp.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/why-is-the-ipccs-mitigation-wg3-summary-report-so-disappointing/

SANDRP = South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People

They argue it isn't good enough.

Here are some important relevant extracts and comments thereon. As IPCC statement in Berlin while releasing this report highlighted, this report is endorsed by the governments and is supposed to provide the main scientific guide for nations working on a UN deal to be agreed in late 2015. While governments of the world have promised to limit the increase in global temperature within 2 degrees C above pre-industrial level (there are many who have questioned if this will be good enough), this report does not provide clear implications of current global warming path and credible road-map to achieve that objective in a equitable, sustainable and democratic way. Many of solutions suggested in this report including Carbon Capture & Storage, Nuclear Energy, Redd+, CDM and plantations are in reality false solutions, as is also proved by increasing trajectory of emissions in spite of so called actions being taken since over a decade. As a Guardian report on leaked copy of the report warned, it seems this report is largely making business as usual recommendations without showing will to face the reality or learn from past experiences.

To extend on one of your comments:

Okay - late edit: Final Draft won't be available till tomorrow. This is their opening statement...http://mitigation2014.org/

Concluding four years of intense scientific collaboration by hundreds of authors from around the world, this report responds to the request of the world's governments for a comprehensive, objective and policy neutral assessment of the current scientific knowledge on mitigating climate change. [quote]The report has been extensively reviewed by experts and governments to ensure quality and comprehensiveness. The quintessence of this work, the Summary for Policymakers, has been approved line by line by member governments at the 12th Session of IPCC WG III in Berlin, Germany (7-11 April 2014).

Answer me this:

If the purpose of the report was to:

this report responds to the request of the world's governments for a comprehensive, objective and policy neutral assessment of the current scientific knowledge on mitigating climate change.

why then did:

The report has been extensively reviewed by experts and governments to ensure quality and comprehensiveness. The quintessence of this work, the Summary for Policymakers, has been approved line by line by member governments at the 12th Session of IPCC WG III in Berlin, Germany (7-11 April 2014).

The Governments have an editorial role?

It seems to me that SANDRP was right when it said:

it seems this report is largely making business as usual recommendations without showing will to face the reality or learn from past experiences

I think you are right when you said this:

but this sounds like a license for polluters to keep on polluting

Looking at that graph from both of our links, in 2010 total CO2 equivalent emissions were

65% CO2 - Fossil Fuel use and Industrial Processes (for instance, cement production)
11% CO2 - FOLU (forestry and other land use)
16% CH4 - 'Cow Phartz, etc.'
~ 6% N2O - Nitrous Oxide
2% F-Gasses - Covered Fluorinated gases.

Reversing that trend would require a huge shift toward energy sources like wind, solar or nuclear power, plus a slew of other changes, like increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and slowing deforestation.

Why are they not looking to end deforestation, and even to reverse it?

Why deforestation? Three main reasons.
1. Humans need room to live/work for the growing human population.
2. Humans need room to grow food for the growing human population.
3. Humans have a desire for wood products for their growing population.

In the US, we are having a rather modest success in reversing deforestation, but it is due in large part to mono-cultural tree farms. Hardly a replacement for old-growth deciduous hardwood forest in terms of either Carbon or biodiversity.

I agree that something needs to be done to stop and reverse deforestation, but I can't think of a way that won't highly anger a large segment of the human population. Perhaps someone else can.

Another part of the report addresses so-called "geo-engineering" technologies that could possibly manipulate the atmosphere and artificially cool the planet.

"It's quite controversial. It's controversial among environmental advocates, it's controversial among scientists, and it's certainly controversial among governments," says Stavins. "But research is clearly needed."

THAT is one of the scariest things I've ever heard. Volcanic eruptions do things like that...

I agree, scary. And they are already trying some of it... A few years ago, someone developed a theory that by dumping powdered iron compounds into parts of the ocean, it would cause a plankton bloom which would help remove CO2. While it might have worked in laboratory experiments, it didn't when they actually tried it.

Huge concerns on my part over unintended consequences. Other processes for CO2 removal are going to be rather energy intensive. Even if they were powered by 'non-fossil-fuel' alternative energy, it is quite likely that a LARGER reduction in CO2 could be achieved by just forgetting about the CO2 removal and just putting that alternative energy into the power grid.

I am sorry that it upsets some around here that I oppose the 'Warmists'. But my opposition isn't really about the science. It is about the politics surrounding the 'Warmist' movement. As you mentioned about 'deforestation', and that SANDRP publication I linked also says... Why aren't they doing anything to try and STOP it, other than just discouraging fossil fuel use in the Developed Nations? I question their motives, not the science.

I have obtained and am reading the 2013 IPCC WG1 report (the science). It is quite long, and is taking much time for me to read (due to other demands on my time).

I plan to obtain soon the 2014 IPCC WG2 report (climatic effects), and now the 2014 IPCC WG3 report (mitigation strategies) is out. Whole lot of reading going I'm gonna be doing.

Again, anniet, interesting post of yours. Have fun.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Hi Major Kong :) How are you?

Re: http://sandrp.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/why-is-the-ipccs-mitigation-wg3-summary-report-so-disappointing/

Thanks for the link. Made for interesting reading.

SANDRP = South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People argue it isn't good enough.

And they're not wrong. :[

Answer me this:

If the purpose of the report was to:
"respond to the request of the world's governments for a comprehensive, objective and policy neutral assessment of the current scientific knowledge on mitigating climate change"

why then did the Governments have an editorial role?

That is a good question MK (may I call you that? :)). And how much has all this cost? A small fortune I bet... not to mention the cost of all the additional pollutants flying fatcat politicians in and out all over the place. They may as well have just stopped at the bit where they conceived of the term “policy neutral”... then shoved a colon in the middle..

I think you are right when you said:
"but this sounds like a license for polluters to keep on polluting"

Oh.

Now that is a pity... I was hoping I was wrong. :/

Why deforestation? Three main reasons.
1. Humans need room to live/work for the growing human population.
2. Humans need room to grow food for the growing human population.
3. Humans have a desire for wood products for their growing population.

In the US, we are having a rather modest success in reversing deforestation, but it is due in large part to mono-cultural tree farms. Hardly a replacement for old-growth deciduous hardwood forest in terms of either Carbon or biodiversity.

I agree that something needs to be done to stop and reverse deforestation, but I can't think of a way that won't highly anger a large segment of the human population. Perhaps someone else can.

Well... we could start with a little education so that we stop doing eveything wrong...

SO...

Fancy taking a look



from inside the pile of dung we're creating for our trees folks? :) I did warn you I was going to start banging on about them again... :)

Everyone sitting comfy? :) Then let's begin...

The tree issue is indeed an extremely complex one. It certainly can't be dealt with in isolation (meaning just planting more trees to soak up more CO2) because it's NOT C02 that's a problem for trees and forests. It's the toxic airborne pollutants (we're releasing with our addiction to fossil fuels) that come with it ( such as fluorides, oxidants, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulates).

Sunlight, reacting with oxidants, is forming tree pollutants like ozone and PAN (peroxyl acetyl nitrate) at ground level and adversely affecting plants' abilities to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

High concentrations of ozone cause plants to close their stomata (the cells on the underside of the leaf that allows carbon dioxide to diffuse into the plant tissue). It's a protective mechanism for the tree/plant but it limits it's: CO2 absorption, oxygen production; and release of water vapour. All essential for all life on earth.

Particulates on the other hand (an increasing component in our air) can keep stoma partially open, increasing susceptibility to disease. That allows ozone to penetrate much further into cells - causing damage and cell death in its wake. (Of course our activities are not the only source of particulates (forest fires, volcanoes, etc cause their fair share) but our attraction for burning things is beginning to overwhelm our planet's mechanisms to redress the balance).

Ozone near the ground also interferes with photosynthesis by blocking sunlight, reducing a tree's ability to harness it for growth. This is also true for crop production. Between 10-20% of food crops fail due to ozone pollution. Of course, not all crops are susceptible. Tobacco plants aren't... some of our biofuel plants aren't - but that's hardly good news when we consider that what we're growing them for, specifically, is to um... well... how can I put this tactfully... burn them?

We know people have a hard time breathing when ozone levels are high. We also know plants do too, and we've known that since the late 80's.

Ozone, formed in the atmosphere’s upper layers, protects the earth from radiation... but in the troposphere (where levels have increased by 35% in the last century) it is a powerful phytotoxin - meaning it is one of the most significant and damaging airborne pollutants to plant life... and trees are our canary in the coal mine and they're dying. They just don't keel over as fast as the feathered variety. If they did, perhaps we'd be doing more to steer away from the precipice we're so gaily hurtling towards.

...The northern hardwood trees of the Allegheny and Monongahela National Forests... Tens of thousands of acres of sugar maples, yellow birch, beech, black cherry, red oaks and several other species over the higher elevations of the mountains of eastern West Virginia and northwest Pennsylvania; The lower elevations of the Appalachian region into the oak-hickory and mixed-mesophytic forests of southern West Virginia. And that's just a few examples in North America. Similar die-back in the Meditteranean Basin is also being observed... In Central Europe, silver firs, Norway pines, beech and oak trees are being affected, and are in danger. Germany has such extensive pollution in its forest soils that the soil no longer supports healthy tree growth. They've known the impact pollution is having on their forests for years - yet they're about to start incinerating the dirtiest coal imaginable – for a “short term” economic fix... no matter what the long term cost?

Worried? Don't be yet peoples :) because I haven't finished.

Compared to our Equatorial rainforests, our northern hemisphere forests grow in much cooler temperatures, and don't get nearly as much annual sunlight... and we're doing a much better job of "protecting” them (whilst we poison them) than we are the real lungs of our planet. Of course – if temperatures do rise...

...but let's not go down that slippery slope into the future... not whilst we're still in the middle of some perfectly good dung in the right here and now... :)

Ozone is a major component of smog, which damages the lungs. It's even worse for the health of trees such as ponderosa and Jeffrey pines, the dominant species in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California... and they're staples of the timber industry (number three in your list of understandable reasons for why some deforestation is unfortunately inevitable MK). Good timber management keeps carbon locked up indefinitely (in the form of furniture etc) but diseased and dying trees, their wood too porous, or damaged for commercial use – are either dragged away to be burned, used in sub-standard buildings which soon need tearing down, or fall down all by themselves, and/or are left to decay – releasing what carbon they managed to lock up, back into the atmosphere.

Vehicles, industry, and agriculture (and many of our GM crops in particular - due to heavy fertiliser use and aggressive tilling of soils) also release one particularly bad gremlin - nitrogen oxides - and hydrocarbons into the atmosphere... that in a series of oxidation reactions with trees themselves are now, as we speak, producing ozone at ground level that we have no way of levitating up to where it can't hurt us.

Take, for example, the natural hydrocarbon isoprene, from oak trees in the foothills of the Sierras... mix it with the rising, wind-borne nitrogen-oxides in human pollution... waft it into the pine forests higher up the slopes... chuck in some sunshine... and you've produced up to 70% of the ozone in the Sierras which is damaging the timber industry there.

And such reactions are likely wherever forests are downwind of industrial pollution.

So... should we cut down all the oak trees?

Isoprene is normally not a pollutant. It is one of the natural products arising from MANY plants, and all our legume crops. Its production greatly increases as temperatures rise and it's a major protective factor in guarding against heat stress in photosynthesising plants. So... we could be seeing a lot more of it about in the future. Its contribution to the formation of tropospheric ozone is only possible in the presence of high levels of nitrogen-oxide, and that comes almost exclusively from industrial activities.

Under low levels of nitrogen oxide, isoprene actually quenches ozone formation – but that neat chemistry trick is unlikely to happen under our stewardship of the planet – and even if it were, it would probably be too late to save our timber industries – and most of our crops.

The short answer to this problem is that we should not be cutting down our trees... we should be drastically cutting our nitrogen-oxide emissions instead.

Oh dear – this is already soooooooooooo long... :/ coffee break anyone? While we can :)

I will be back with more... because I haven't even started on those other nasty pollutants we're releasing, like sulphur dioxide... not to mention the effect on plants and trees of those manmade hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds we're emitting...

So... until I do... in the meantime... why not hug a tree - whilst you still can :)

Anyway - back to your last post MK :) sorry for keeping you waiting :)

When I said to this:

Another part of the report addresses so-called "geo-engineering" technologies that could possibly manipulate the atmosphere and artificially cool the planet.

THAT is one of the scariest things I've ever heard.

You said:

I agree, scary. And they are already trying some of it... A few years ago, someone developed a theory that by dumping powdered iron compounds into parts of the ocean, it would cause a plankton bloom which would help remove CO2. While it might have worked in laboratory experiments, it didn't when they actually tried it.

Which reminds me of things I've read about algal blooms (associated with nitrogen runoff). I must tell you about those too in my next post... REALLY interesting... because many of the “death zones” in our rivers and streams are the result of cleared forest land being... well... totally useless for food production (number two in your “why deforestation” list MK) ... without seriously heavy annual applications of fertiliser aggressively tilled into the land and releasing... oops – you guessed it – more nitrogen-oxide.

Huge concerns on my part over unintended consequences. Other processes for CO2 removal are going to be rather energy intensive.

Well - given our biggest “success story” is the removal of fly ash and bottom ash residues (created when coal is burned at power plants) my confidence levels aren't high when it comes to CO2 removal. In the United States, just for example, where fly ash is generally stored at coal power plants or placed in landfills, pollution is leaching into groundwater and has emerged as a new environmental concern. Assuming we can scrub our air of our CO2 contribution, where are we going to put it? Mars? That would be energy intensive I must admit.

Even if they were powered by 'non-fossil-fuel' alternative energy, it is quite likely that a LARGER reduction in CO2 could be achieved by just forgetting about the CO2 removal and just putting that alternative energy into the power grid.

That's what looked like was going to happen - but it's being stalled significantly by the highly subsidised industry that is the greatest polluter of all... And aspects of this "much waited for" latest report seem to be breathtakingly compliant with that.

I have obtained and am reading the 2013 IPCC WG1 report (the science). It is quite long, and is taking much time for me to read (due to other demands on my time).

I plan to obtain soon the 2014 IPCC WG2 report (climatic effects), and now the 2014 IPCC WG3 report (mitigation strategies) is out. Whole lot of reading I'm gonna be doing.

Again, anniet, interesting post of yours. Have fun.

Have fun, MK? While we can, do you mean? :)

Hi anniet, I am fine, thank you for asking. I have been a bit busy today. My daughter turned 2, and I had to bake a cake, sort out all the presents, etc... she had fun, and went totally bugnutz over the present my wife and I got her.. Nice pink teddy bear holding a rose. (And Es99, don't get started, my oldest son also likes the color pink, and I have a few shirts in that color myself). Pink is her favorite color. It was a happy day for her. Right now, she is asleep in her bed all cuddled up with it.

EDIT: Well, that was last night. I konked out last night while typing this. She is awake this morning, and still doesn't wanna put that teddy bear down.

I am glad you liked the SANDRP link.

Calling me MK is fine.

That was a nice talk about effects of some kinds of pollution on plants. For the most part it was spot on. I do have a few minor issues with it.

First, a very minor point, more of a clarification.

Which reminds me of things I've read about algal blooms (associated with nitrogen runoff). I must tell you about those too in my next post... REALLY interesting... because many of the “death zones” in our rivers and streams are the result of cleared forest land being... well... totally useless for food production (number two in your “why deforestation” list MK) ... without seriously heavy annual applications of fertilizer aggressively tilled into the land and releasing... oops – you guessed it – more nitrogen-oxide.

Well, not ALL cleared forest land is totally useless for food production. But a prime case in point for what you mean is the subsistence-level (ie: not rich enough to afford the fertilizer) agriculture in areas with tropical rain forests. The bulk of the nutrients in a tropical rain-forest biome is in the... rain-forest plants themselves. When a farmer does slash&burn on some of the rain-forest land so he/she can plant their crops, the land is only good for a couple of years before being totally depleted. Like I said, all the 'good stuff' gets burned in the slash&burn. After the 2 or so years, the farmer has to repeat the process. And it takes centuries for the land to recover to its original state, if ever.

Another point I wish to expound on is the Nitrogen-oxides (NOx). There are more sources of NOx than just the ones you have listed. A big one you have left out is...

FIRE

Fire is the glowing gases associated with a combustion process. These gases glow due to rather high temperature. This high temperature will break some of the chemical bonds holding the atoms together in molecules. The most common component of air is Nitrogen (N2) (around 78%). The next most common component of air is Oxygen (around 22%). Now then, the fire breaks a N2 into 2 N, and an O2 into 2 O. and now then as the gas cools, if one of the N atoms happens to meet an O atom before it finds another N, it will bond to the O. The process continues another round or two and you have NOx... Nitrogen oxides.

You have doubtless heard the old saying 'Where there is smoke, there is fire.'. Well, I say that 'where there is fire, there is NOx.'

It doesn't matter if the fire is inside the internal combustion engine of your car, in the fireplace at your home, or in the stove/barbecue grill/campfire you cook your food on. Don't like NOx?? (and plenty of reason why you shouldn't)... Turn the fire off, and leave it off.


The biggest one is:

good timber management keeps carbon locked up indefinitely (in the form of furniture etc)

That statement turns out to be wrong over the time scale necessary to use when discussing CO2 in the atmosphere. The wood will eventually decompose, releasing the Carbon in it back into the atmosphere as CO2.

The one semi-permanent way (and I say semi-permanent for a reason I will go into later) of removing CO2 from active participation in the carbon cycle is combining the CO2 with Calcium (Ca) in the sediment in the very deep water on the ocean floor forming Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3 aka Limestone). That is pretty much *IT*. Until that happens, the CO2 is still running around the air and water on our planet causing its problems.

Yes, the process removed enough CO2, over geologic time, to drop the concentration in the atmosphere from over 6000 ppm (about 550 million years ago) down to the 'pre-industrial' assumed value of 300 ppm. But then, that took hundreds of millions of years.

I say that CaCO3 formation (the ONLY real way) is only a semi-permanent way of removing CO2 from the Carbon Cycle. Here is why. Limestone. You ever play with any of it? Drop a couple of drops of household vinegar onto some. What happens? It fizzes. The captured CO2 is released as the acetic acid in the vinegar is neutralized. This is the process that formed most caves. The CaCO3 was eaten away by acids in the water.

Lots of different effects are going on, but the net effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 on deep-ocean CaCO3 formation is that it slows it down GREATLY.

I would highly suggest that you re-read (or read it if you haven't yet) Dr. Archer's paper that I linked in one of the 'Climate' threads a couple of weeks or so ago.
http://www.lic.wisc.edu/glifwc/Polymet/SDEIS/references/Archer%202005.pdf

Citation: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, C09S05, doi:10.1029/2004JC002625, 2005

Published in Journal of Geophysical Research, a well-respected peer-reviewed journal.

Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) publishes original scientific research on the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the understanding of the Earth, Sun, and solar system and all of their environments and components.

Here is Dr. Archer's bio and cv, if you are interested.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/directory/david-archer

If you read his paper I linked, please pay attention to the following:

The carbon cycle of the biosphere will take a long
time to completely neutralize and sequester anthropogenic CO2. We show a wide range of model forecasts of this effect. For the best guess cases, which include air/seawater, CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr.

That is about 7% of added CO2 is still in the atmosphere 100 THOUSAND years from now... Now you see why I say that the Carbon locked up in the wood furniture doesn't really count? Not on THIS time scale. 100000 years. Urgh.

In other publications, Dr. Archer takes the IPCC to task about their EXTREMELY optimistic estimates on how long CO2 is around.

In 1990, the IPCC said the CO2 lifetime is 50 to 200 years.
In 1995 and 2001, the IPCC said it was 5 to 200 years.
They finally backed off in their next report, and stopped giving an estimate, after Dr. Archer published the paper I linked.

Contributing author Richard Betts of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre says the panel made this change in recognition of the fact that "the lifetime estimates cited in previous reports had been potentially misleading, or at least open to misinterpretation."

Source: Carbon is Forever

Another passage from the above article:

The lasting effects of CO2 also have big implications for energy policies, argues James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. "Because of this long CO2 lifetime, we cannot solve the climate problem by slowing down emissions by 20% or 50% or even 80%. It does not matter much whether the CO2 is emitted this year, next year, or several years from now," he wrote in a letter this August.

THIS is the problem I have with the IPCC and other high-priests of 'Warmism'. Their solutions do not fix the problem, and ALL the indication is that the reason why is political corruption.

SANDRP wrote:

... isn't good enough...

anniet wrote:

"but this sounds like a license for polluters to keep on polluting"

KWSN-MajorKong wrote:

why then did the Governments have an editorial role?

See how the pieces are beginning to fit together?




I do not dispute the science. I KNOW that CO2 is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere due to human activity. I KNOW that CO2 absorbs heat under some conditions. I find it VERY reasonable that increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will 'warm things up', as it were. I am not sure by how much, and I don't think that anyone else is either. The research on the subject is improving our understanding of the subject. The error/uncertainty bars on the model results are getting smaller/shorter.

If the only concern was a small rise in global temperature, it might be tempting to ride it out. But human activity is having a number of other negative effects on our environment. Some you have mentioned in your post I am responding to.. Others have been mentioned in posts by others (ocean acidification being one of the chief ones to be highly concerned about).

Humanity has been seriously boned since the first time a human figured out how to make fire, and our long journey outside the balance of nature began.

Remember that graph from the WG3 report displayed in both the NPR link you posted about it and the SANDRP link I posted?

Well, here is the numbers from 2010 from it on greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions (in CO2 equivalents).

Fossil Fuel/Industrial CO2 = 65%
Forestry and other land use = 11%
CH4 (methane) emission = 16%
N2O (a nitrogen oxide -- yes, they are ALSO GHGs) = 6.2%
F-gases (some types of Fluorinated gases active as GHGs) = 2%.

Total emission in CO2 equivalents in 2010 = 49 Billion Tons.

A LOT more than just fossil fuel use goes into anthropogenic(human caused) CO2 emissions.

Let us look at CH4 emissions. Two primary sources are agricultural. Ruminant digestion of cellulose, and cultivation of rice. You might say that that is just methane, right? Not CO2. Well, first methane is a short lived gas in the atmosphere, just a few years. But it is considerably more potent a GHG than CO2. Guess what? When the methane breaks down, what does it break down into? Yep... CO2.

CH4 + 2O2 ===> CO2 + 2H2O

Methane gets us coming and going.

FOLU CO2... Nothing really to do with any industrial technology. Just CO2 emissions from land use (cutting down trees, agriculture, etc.)

Industrial CO2... Well, probably the most significant industrial source of CO2 is cement production. So significant that most breakdowns of CO2 production give it its own category. Reinforced concrete (cement + gravel + iron/steel 'rebar') is a very popular building material. It is also used to build roads and streets, etc.

What alternatives exist for building roads & streets? Well, there is asphalt... Uhh... wait... asphalt is FOSSIL FUEL, or at least the heavy residue left over from the fractional distillation of crude oil to produce gasoline/diesel/etc. Ever SMELL asphalt that has been freshly put down? Chock full of volatile organics that out-gas over a period of time. Not very ideal to spray/spread that schizz all over the environment, now is it?

Now we get down to the nitty-gritty. Fossil Fuel use to provide transportation and power. What are we going to do about it? What CAN we do about it?

Now, I support use of 'alternative' energy sources. I pay extra on my electric bill to use wind/solar/nuclear power whenever possible.

But the reality of the situation is that the ONLY alternative energy technology that can adequately replace fossil fuel use in the electric power grid is nuclear fission. And it isn't exactly very popular.

As you mentioned, even Germany is decommissioning its nuclear power plants in favor of replacing them with lignite coal-fired plants. The DIRTIEST coal to use there is.

But, even if we had the political will to stop today ALL fossil fuel use, that wouldn't be good enough. There are WAY too many other sources of CO2.

Even if, in addition, we had the political will to stop today ALL industrial CO2 emission, that wouldn't be good enough. There is WAY too much CO2 directly and indirectly emitted by remaining human activity sources.

We would have to ALSO, in addition to the above, stop agriculture and other non-natural land use. Then we might do some good.

Scared yet?

You should be!

Scared yet?

You should be!

KWSN..

You a lot more knowledge than I regarding this Subject.

With my meager knowledge, have always thought that the only Real solution was a DRASTIC reduction in Human Population, and then an attempt for live with the mess we made.

Any thoughts?

We face a hard choice. A VERY hard one. *IF* we decide to ignore things and continue on, even IF AGW is not true, the amount of other damage we are doing isn't.... sustainable.

And the longer we put off doing something, the more Draconian the solution is going to have to be.

But my thought is that the 'DRASTIC reduction in Human Population' would be a perhaps unavoidable side effect of the necessary solution, and not a planned part of the solution itself.

But you have hit the nail on the head with a hammer. The main PROBLEM is there are too many humans demanding too few resources and producing too much waste for the planet to handle. And there is NO way around it. Just about any solution to our problems is going to entail, either specifically or as a side effect, some level of population reduction. This makes me sad. And I also know that the political will to do so does not exist. In a nutshell, we are screwed and have been since the first time a human figured out how to make fire, thereby setting us all on a road to ruin.