Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Paw said:
I'll just put this here.

All the carbon that is locked up as "fossil fuels" used to be in the atmosphere as CO2 once upon a time.
Click to expand...
And that's apparently what's to be worried about. More vegetation near the poles and less around the equator.
 
Paw said:
I'll just put this here.

All the carbon that is locked up as "fossil fuels" used to be in the atmosphere as CO2 once upon a time.
Click to expand...
To be fair though it accumulated in these fuels over millions of years, whereas we are consuming it and releasing in back into the atmosphere at a much quicker rate, therefor increasing the percentage of it in the atmosphere in the present day, thats the problem, if we were burning fossil fuels at the rate they are being created, it would balance itself out, but obviously we are not.
 
CO2 in the atmosphere (average) was 260 ppm at the start of the industrial revolution.
In 1960 it was 320 ppm
in 2013 it was 400 ppm
today its 415 ppm
 
Kieran97 said:
CO2 in the atmosphere (average) was 260 ppm at the start of the industrial revolution.
In 1960 it was 320 ppm
in 2013 it was 400 ppm
today its 415 ppm
Click to expand...
And yet we still breathe, nature is very resilient. Could it be possible the exponential increase in air travel had something to do with it?
 
6600 said:
And yet we still breathe, nature is very resilient. Could it be possible the exponential increase in air travel had something to do with it?
Click to expand...
A bit of everything
Air travel
Larger population means more industrial output
Increased energy demand, 81% of which is still from fossil fuels.

Largest emitters are China, the USA, India, Russia and Japan.
The only big countries that seem bothered about reducing emissions are France, the UK and Germany. The big 5 emitters need to make more of an effort.

Our size is little excuse for us to sit on our laurels, but as many have rightly said we are a drop in the ocean.
 
Cjmc said:
To be fair though it accumulated in these fuels over millions of years, whereas we are consuming it and releasing in back into the atmosphere at a much quicker rate, therefor increasing the percentage of it in the atmosphere in the present day, thats the problem, if we were burning fossil fuels at the rate they are being created, it would balance itself out, but obviously we are not.
Click to expand...
The carbon would be used by plants, it heats up say round the world but places like Siberia and the South pole and Alaska Greenland etc become warmer to be practically tropical areas. That extra vegetation uses up the carbon dioxide turning it into carbon. One would offset the other there is no more carbon in our atmosphere or on the planet than there ever has been before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paw
jcb411abuser said:
The carbon would be used by plants, it heats up say round the world but places like Siberia and the South pole and Alaska Greenland etc become warmer to be practically tropical areas. That extra vegetation uses up the carbon dioxide turning it into carbon. One would offset the other there is no more carbon in our atmosphere or on the planet than there ever has been before.
Click to expand...
Theres a difference in Carbon and CO2 though.

Solid or liquid forms or carbon are generally unreactive. When we burn the hydrocarbons, we get gaseous carbon in the form of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

CCS or carbon capture and storage is a new technology where you mix different compounds with CO2 and turn them back into a solid. Therefore, they can't get into the atmosphere.
 
jcb411abuser said:
The carbon would be used by plants, it heats up say round the world but places like Siberia and the South pole and Alaska Greenland etc become warmer to be practically tropical areas. That extra vegetation uses up the carbon dioxide turning it into carbon. One would offset the other there is no more carbon in our atmosphere or on the planet than there ever has been before.
Click to expand...
That sounds mighty simplistic and even if it is true, it still wont solve the issue of rising sea levels, loss of natural habitat for lots of species, reduced air quality etc., all of which threaten our way of life right now, are we not better of as a species to try and solve the problem now rather than adopt a 'sure we'll wait and see, it'll be grand' approach. Also you dont take into account the huge areas of land that are lost to flooding, rising sea levels, desertification, etc. where no vegetation will grow.
As kieran says theres a big difference between the element, carbon, and the gas, carbon dioxide and their effects on the planet.
 
Last edited:
Cjmc said:
To be fair though it accumulated in these fuels over millions of years, whereas we are consuming it and releasing in back into the atmosphere at a much quicker rate, therefor increasing the percentage of it in the atmosphere in the present day, thats the problem, if we were burning fossil fuels at the rate they are being created, it would balance itself out, but obviously we are not.
Click to expand...
Fossil fuels are not being created anymore. They were all created at the same time, the Carboniferous period. It was a time before lignin digesting microbes had evolved.
 
Paw said:
Fossil fuels are not being created anymore. They were all created at the same time, the Carboniferous period. It was a time before lignin digesting microbes had evolved.
Click to expand...
peatland, although not strictly a fossil fuel,that is not being harvested is constantly accumulating, at a very small rate mind you, but thats how all fossil fuels were created, over a very long period of time. How long did the carboniferous period last for?
 
Last edited:
headcase said:
so how do we solve the problem of natural global warming due to sun spots etc?
Click to expand...
Maybe we should focus on the man made global warming first.
Despite my view that we, humans, are responsible for global warming, or at least an acceleration in global warming, I actually dont believe we will stop it from happening, not because we cant, but because there is no real collective will around the world to solve it, everyone wants to just blame someone else and point the finger, unfortunately farming is bearing the brunt of that finger pointing at the moment, unfairly in my opinion.
In order for a global reduction in emissions to be achieved, whole economies would have to suffer.
Economies are built on oil and gas production, manufacturing, agriculture, tourism etc, all these have a hefty carbon footprint.
Even countries that claim to have a low carbon footprint, like costa rica, rely on large numbers of tourists visiting their country to keep the economy going, tourists mean flights, flights mean planes, planes mean emissions.
 
Cjmc said:
Maybe we should focus on the man made global warming first.
Despite my view that we, humans, are responsible for global warming, or at least an acceleration in global warming, I actually dont believe we will stop it from happening, not because we cant, but because there is no real collective will around the world to solve it, everyone wants to just blame someone else and point the finger, unfortunately farming is bearing the brunt of that finger pointing at the moment, unfairly in my opinion.
In order for a global reduction in emissions to be achieved, whole economies would have to suffer.
Economies are built on oil and gas production, manufacturing, agriculture, tourism etc, all these have a hefty carbon footprint.
Even countries that claim to have a low carbon footprint, like costa rica, rely on large numbers of tourists visiting their country to keep the economy going, tourists mean flights, flights mean planes, planes mean emissions.
Click to expand...
bingo:Thumbp2:
 
headcase said:
bingo:Thumbp2:
Click to expand...
Report just now on rte news, just proves my point, summit on climate change, consensus by all those interviewed is there is no leadership, everyone wants someone else to make changes but dont want to make any themselves.
 
Kieran97 said:
CO2 in the atmosphere (average) was 260 ppm at the start of the industrial revolution.
In 1960 it was 320 ppm
in 2013 it was 400 ppm
today its 415 ppm
Click to expand...
0.04% of co2 in the atmosphere 97% of it comes from nature and a mere 3% of it comes from mans activities.
 
farmerjack said:
0.04% of co2 in the atmosphere 97% of it comes from nature and a mere 3% of it comes from mans activities.
Click to expand...
It's not as simple as that. The oceans and most vegetation are large carbon sinks. While they are able to take back In the carbon the expel, they are not able to keep up with the rate of change of CO2 produced by human activities.

There's no questioning anymore that human activity is having an effect. Look at the keeling curve. This is the rate at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.

b546cb12-a273-4f7a-90f2-a2eec56fcb98.jpg
 
Kieran97 said:
It's not as simple as that. The oceans and most vegetation are large carbon sinks. While they are able to take back In the carbon the expel, they are not able to keep up with the rate of change of CO2 produced by human activities.

There's no questioning anymore that human activity is having an effect. Look at the keeling curve. This is the rate at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.

View attachment 72526
Click to expand...
And what odds cause if the world heats up the capacity of the globe to grow vegetation will increase which will use up the excess carbon in the atmosphere. It'll just cycle round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top