Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumScientists say window to reduce carbon emissions is small
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2016/feb/scientists-say-window-reduce-carbon-emissions-small02/08/2016
[font size=3]CORVALLIS, Ore. At the rate humans are emitting carbon into the atmosphere, the Earth may suffer irreparable damage that could last tens of thousands of years, according to a new analysis published this week.
Too much of the climate change policy debate has focused on observations of the past 150 years and their impact on global warming and sea level rise by the end of this century, the authors say. Instead, policy-makers and the public should also be considering the longer-term impacts of climate change.
Much of the carbon we are putting in the air from burning fossil fuels will stay there for thousands of years and some of it will be there for more than 100,000 years, said Peter Clark, an Oregon State University paleoclimatologist and lead author on the article. People need to understand that the effects of climate change on the planet wont go away, at least not for thousands of generations.
The researchers analysis is being published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change.
[/font][/font]
randys1
(16,286 posts)could do.
The GOP is trying to kill the human race.
I have said that for a long time, waiting for everyone to catch up.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)That (of course) would be suicide.
I think they just want to be as rich as possible.
Just cannot figure out why.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)If we stop emitting CO2 completely today, it will take 100,000 years to return to pre-industrial levels. Every year we delay costs the planet another 2500 years of recovery time.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)My conclusion, based on the analysis of James Hansen (et al.) is that we will need to resort to non-natural processes.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that.
pscot
(21,024 posts)do you envision? At some point the powers that be will decide to pull out all the stops. What forms might that take.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Carbon sequestration in soil also has significant potential. Biochar, produced in pyrolysis of residues from crops, forestry, and animal wastes, can be used to restore soil fertility while storing carbon for centuries to millennia (82). Biochar helps soil retain nutrients and fertilizers, reducing emissions of GHGs such as N₂O (83). Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture with slash-and-char and use of agricultural and forestry wastes for biochar production could provide a CO₂ drawdown of ~8 ppm in half a century (83).
In Supplementary Material we define a forest/soil drawdown scenario that reaches 50 ppm by 2150 (Fig. 6B). This scenario returns CO₂ below 350 ppm late this century, after about 100 years above that level.
Assumptions yielding the Forestry & Soil wedge in Figure 6B are as follows. It is assumed that current net deforestation will decline linearly to zero between 2010 and 2015. It is assumed that uptake of carbon via reforestation will increase linearly until 2030, by which time reforestation will achieve a maximum potential sequestration rate of 1.6 GtC per year (S34). Waste-derived biochar application will be phased in linearly over the period 2010-2020, by which time it will reach a maximum uptake rate of 0.16 GtC/yr (83). Thus after 2030 there will be an annual uptake of 1.6 + 0.16 = 1.76 GtC per year, based on the two processes described.
Even then, it was a bit of a stretch
Various chemical reactions may be used to capture carbon from ambient air. I expect these will be attempted.
The thing that haunts me is this: Weve been burning coal to produce energy. If we wanted to capture the CO₂ we released and convert it into say a solid chunk of carbon (like coal) we would need to supply every bit of energy that was released by burning the coal in the first place and then some (due to thermodynamic inefficiencies.) Kinda like paying a loan back with interest.
Thats a lot of energy to get from somewhere, in a hurry
As a result, I think we will probably attempt to sequester CO₂ itself. (Perhaps deep ocean sequestration.)
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)We don't seem to be in that much of a hurry, yet.