Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Carbon Cycle  (Read 113012 times)

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #100 on: March 25, 2014, 04:11:20 PM »
Comment: Shellfish die-off shows a future we must avoid
Published 25 March 2014    Media coverage Leave a Comment
The Feb. 27 headline, “Ocean acidity wipes out 10M scallops; Mass die-off near Qualicum Beach ominous sign for shellfish harvest,” should have hit British Columbians like a punch in the stomach.

The shellfish industry has been an economic powerhouse on central Vancouver Island for decades, providing hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue every year — more than $30 million in average wholesale value.


But when we talk about shellfish, we aren’t just talking jobs and economics. We are talking about food. Shellfish harvesting is one of our most robust local food systems, and the prospect of losing this industry makes us all feel, quite frankly, a little hungry.

Of the possible causes of the recent scallop die-off, ocean acidification seems the most likely. Ocean acidification is directly connected to climate change and to our runaway consumption of fossil fuels. In short, acidification occurs when carbon is absorbed into the ocean from the atmosphere, making the water more acidic. Acidification strips the ocean of carbonate ions, which marine species like scallops and oysters need to build their shells, therefore reducing the ability of these species to survive.

For years, groups like the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association have been raising the alarm about the verified threat of acidification to the shellfish industry.

Roberta Stevenson, the association’s executive director, told us that the public and our elected decision-makers need to understand how serious the situation is for shellfish growers on B.C.’s coast. She said the significant economic benefits the industry provides could disappear if we don’t start to see the health of the oceans as an economic priority.

A major source of atmospheric carbon is the burning of fossil fuels: oil, coal and gas. In B.C., we have a stake in important decisions over whether to build fossil-fuel export infrastructure. The proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines, the prospective B.C. liquefied natural gas industry and the proposed Raven coal mine will all put much more carbon into the atmosphere, further acidifying the ocean and directly threatening the survival of shellfish species and coastal communities.

All these proposed projects need B.C.’s consent. It’s important that we make the right choices and get on a path to a low-carbon future.

The recent scallop die-off is a clear illustration of what we will face if we don’t act now to reduce our carbon emissions. Climate change and ocean acidification will continue to have devastating consequences, not just for coastal economies, communities and families, but for anyone who depends on the ocean as a source of food.

What’s more, coal, oil, and gas are finite resources, guaranteed to go bust when they run out, become too expensive or when the environmental impacts are deemed not worth the risk. Any financial benefits we gain from extracting and exporting them will one day disappear completely. We will be left with the socio-economic hardship and lingering environmental problems well-known to many communities where boom-bust extractive industries have run their course.

By continuing to promote the extraction and export of coal, oilsands oil and fracked gas instead of sustainable sectors in B.C., our government is making a political choice to prioritize short-term profits over renewable industries that can provide economic stability and contribute to viable, healthy communities over the long term.

We all deserve good jobs that don’t destroy our children’s future. For the sake of these shellfish and the families that depend on them, let’s work together to develop a smart and creative strategy to transition away from fossil fuels and toward a low-carbon economy — with meaningful jobs in sustainable industries that don’t compromise ecosystems. A healthy coast is one with abundant food that can still be pulled from the ocean, as it always has been.

If we keep pumping carbon into our atmosphere, we’re investing in an acidic ocean for decades, if not centuries, to come, and we’re forsaking the sustainable shellfish industry and the communities, businesses and jobs it supports.

Caytlin Vernon & Torrance Coste, Times Colonist, 23 March 2014. Article.



TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2031
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #101 on: March 25, 2014, 11:10:12 PM »
"Oil sands" is a euphemism for "Tar sands" coined I believe by none other than Frank Luntz and found to be less of a negative than the more correct tar sands.


We don't refer to the La Brea Oil Pits.


Terry

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #102 on: March 26, 2014, 12:05:29 AM »
It's the Pits

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #103 on: March 26, 2014, 12:38:36 PM »
President Obama has released his 2015 budget request. It asks for $15 million to fund ocean acidification research and programs. Congress will modify this request and although $15 million is an increase of funding from previous years it is a pitifully small amount of funding. There are many homes in the greater Santa Barbara area valued at $30 million each. Big lawns, minimum wage staff, expensive cars and private jets. So bottom line is affluence is far more important , the war machine is far more important than stepping up and looking into our oceans future.
 If anyone out there feels like dropping a letter to your congressionally elected representatives that would potentially help.
 The U.S. Emits about 6 billion tons of Co2 annually . The vast majority( about 90%. ) will eventually end up in the oceans . If we spend $ 15 million on acidification that comes to ~ one dollar for each 400 tons of Co2 emissions, a Faustian bargain if ever there was one. Congress in it's infinite wisdom will undoubtable attempt to reduce Obama's request.
   http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aadams/a_blue_budget_beyond_sequester.html
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 01:38:42 PM by Bruce Steele »

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #104 on: March 26, 2014, 11:56:22 PM »
http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2014/03/26/present-day-nearshore-ph-differentially-depresses-fertilization-in-congeneric-sea-urchins/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+wordpress/lRgb+(Ocean+acidification)

When comes the wind
In the decade since Kurihara and Shirayama 2004 was published I have looked over the horizon and known this day would come. Christina Frieder 2014 has just published a paper documenting fertilization success in Red Sea Urchins. This species of urchin has fisheries in Calif. Oregon , Washington , British Columbia and Alaska.
Fertilization success is reduced 20% even under current pH conditions at 7.8pH and reductions of 60% may be happening in the next few decades as acidification and water conditions deteriorate to   7.5pH in parts of it's range by 2100.  The decreases in fertilization are linear as conditions for successful fertilization decline from 7.8 down to 7.5. That is Red Sea Urchin will have a harder time successfully recruiting into the fishery as time progresses. 
 How fishermen, processors and fish managers respond to deteriorating water conditions will now test management resolve. My fishery will now join Pacific Oysters and Red King Crab as victims of societies addiction to fossil fuels. All of these fisheries now have enough information to predict how and when they will decline. 
 This is a sad day for me. It isn't just a loss for fishermen, it is a harbinger for things to come. The wind has arrived from the storm clouds I saw on the horizon ten years ago. Now the sea will test our mettle. Give us strength. 

ritter

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #105 on: March 27, 2014, 10:20:02 PM »
This is a sad day for me. It isn't just a loss for fishermen, it is a harbinger for things to come. The wind has arrived from the storm clouds I saw on the horizon ten years ago. Now the sea will test our mettle. Give us strength.
Some will be on the front lines, slapped down by climate change first. I'm sorry that you are one of them, considering the efforts you've put into calling attention to it and developing a new paradigm.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #106 on: March 28, 2014, 12:42:20 AM »
Ritter, There are still things we can do. In Calif. we have put about 20% aside in closed areas. The problem with fertilization of Red Sea Urchins is that acidification slows down the swimming speed of the sperm. If urchins are close enough together there will be less trouble with the odds of and egg and a sperm finding each other as they are broadcast spawners and distance between males and females will become more important. Closed areas increase densities and sizes of formerly fished stocks.The other thing you can do is increase the size limit currently 3.25 inches in Southern Calif. and 3.5 in Northern Calif. in the open areas because this too will increase densities.
 We in the Sea Urchin industry have also paid for and helped maintain a long term larval recruitment study now into it's twenty second year. Newly recruited sea urchins ( both red and purple ) are collected on brushes hanging from piers along the Calif coast. The brushes have been collected at about 15 sites every two weeks, sonicated and counted for reds and purple under a biological microscope for a every good data set. Recruitment on the brushes does represent accurately settlement into the fishery. So unlike most invertebrates we have a baseline to compare changes in recruitment as they progress over time. University grant cycles are typically three years and getting funding for long term data-sets is extremely difficult. Not bad for a bunch of salty dogs, not bad at all. Because the effects of acidification on purples and reds are different we also can compare recruitment of two fairly similar inverts that live in similar habitats. If a trend towards decreased Red Urchin recruitment does show up we will see it in the data. Without a baseline this isn't possible. 

ritter

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #107 on: March 28, 2014, 04:45:10 PM »
Yes, Bruce. There are still things we can do. The problem is that we've moved firmly into adaptation as we've failed to implement mitigation. And it's only going to continue to get worse.

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2525
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #108 on: May 01, 2014, 04:32:49 PM »
I like the animation !

Scientists have documented that souring seas caused by CO2 emissions are dissolving pteropods, a key marine food source. The research raises questions about what other sea life might be affected.

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2014/apr/30/pteropod-shells-dissolving/

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #109 on: May 03, 2014, 06:33:55 PM »
Laurent, The nearshore areas where the NOAA survey documented 50% of living pteropods with partial shell dissolution was the same nearshore areas surveyed in 2007 that showed undersaturated (causes shell dissolution)surface waters along the coast of Calif. Oregon and Washington. In the animation that follows you can watch as the area , duration and intensity of the undersaturation expands over the next ~ 35 years.

   

As the biological impacts of acidification can be documented in the shells of live pteropods we may have an animal that can serve as a proxy for general damage being done to the ocean environment in localized areas. Those areas will begin to expand very rapidly over the next two or three decades with the entire California Current ecosystem being exposed to undersaturated waters for months at a time by 2050.  How pteropods respond to very low pH conditions ( < 7.5 pH ) and whether those conditions result in high mortality may demand other biological proxies be developed as pterpods may too sensitive to survive expected near term conditions. So developing a catalog of different species that respond at different pH levels and a map that indicates which species we can expect local expiration or chronically high annual mortality events  is a project for the the coming decade. No fun 
task this.   
« Last Edit: May 03, 2014, 06:43:26 PM by Bruce Steele »

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2011
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #110 on: May 03, 2014, 10:16:36 PM »
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/soil_may_absorb_less_co2_than_thought_20140503

Report
Soil May Absorb Less CO2 Than Thought


They found that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere meant more input into the soil – nearly 20% more – but it also meant more turnover, up by more than 16%.

So if more went in, more was released, because the teeming microscopic fauna that inhabit the soil, recycle nutrients and redistribute plant nourishment also became more active.

“Our findings mean that nature is not as efficient in slowing global warming as we previously thought,” said Dr van Groenigen. “By overlooking this effect of increased CO2 on soil microbes, models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may have overestimated the potential of soil to store carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect.”
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #111 on: May 05, 2014, 05:40:08 PM »
Wili, If you would ask me about the carbon cycle in soils or terrestrial systems in general I wouldn't be able to offer you much more than guesswork. Trees and living bio-mass,charcoal, peat moss , soil organisms and organic breakdown components like humus, cellulose or polysaccharides all are component parts but the length of time carbon can be retained in any of these forms,( or carbon pools ) where the largest terrestrial carbon pools exist or how climate change might affect them are all a mystery to me. Bacteria play a roll in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Bacterial remineralization in the oceans  plays a critical role in the carbon cycle and on land I am sure bacterial play a similar roll. In the oceans I could offer up some info calcifiers like coccoliths or forams, or silica based lifeforms like diatoms or how with sediment traps one might go about quantifying their production and contribution to stored carbon. Soils on the other hand hide their breakdown processes and when you dig dirt up you change it's ability to cycle carbon.          
 Most of our current knowledge about ocean acidification and  all the studies on it's biological consequences are the product of the last ten years of research. I don't think the carbon cycle in soils has garnered anywhere near this level of scrutiny but how the terrestrial carbon cycle responds to global heating whether that be 3 or 6 degrees C is just as important as what is happening to the oceans. It is hard to believe how incredible ignorant we are of either process but in this case ignorance will not be bliss. 
 http://biology.duke.edu/jackson/frontiers04.pdf

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2011
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #112 on: May 05, 2014, 08:22:50 PM »
Thanks Bruce. Our ignorance is of such a basic things as what is in healthy soil and how it functions is stunningly vast indeed. It reminds me of some of Wendell Berry's essays on the importance of remembering the extent of our ignorance as we wade into ever deeper uncharted waters.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2525
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #113 on: May 09, 2014, 09:44:25 PM »
It was already posted I guess, well let's show it again. That information is pretty important.

We can't count on plants to slow down global warming

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/09/cant-count-on-plants-slowing-global-warming

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #114 on: May 13, 2014, 05:16:44 PM »
Paper on the importance of South Atlantic mode water in carbon sequestration. ~ 38% of all oceanic carbon uptake is in the Atlantic with North Atlantic uptake at~ 1.9 PgtC per decade and Southern Atlantic uptake at ~3.0PgtC per decade.38 pages but intro pages 2-5 very instructive.

 http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/11/6755/2014/bgd-11-6755-2014.pdf
 

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2525
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #115 on: May 27, 2014, 02:28:51 PM »
Colossal peat bog discovered in Congo
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27492949

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2525
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #116 on: June 01, 2014, 12:21:28 AM »
I found that video conference about the soil science...quite interesting

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #117 on: June 16, 2014, 05:49:06 PM »
Here is an opinion piece in Seafood Business Magazine. My opinion with some editorial help.

http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/articledetail.aspx?id=23073

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #118 on: July 25, 2014, 06:50:22 PM »
I was interviewed for an NPR piece recently and quoted as supporting marine protected areas, that is large pieces of representative habitat closed to all fishing. As a fisherman it is very contentious and frankly doesn't feel very good. It isn't like any amount of closures will cure what is in store for life in the oceans but if it can do even a little to maintain intact ecosystems then I guess it is something fishermen can do to compensate for the larger ills of society. The thing that grates is that the general public probably figures closures are justified by poor fisheries decisions in the past when in reality they are better justified by very poor decisions currently being made by almost everyone alive on this planet.  Dumping Co2 will do damage to the worlds oceans for thousands of years after the damage comes more into view over the next few decades.
 The following link has a nice picture of a Bryozoa. They are as fragile as a sugar confection. In the end Permian extinction Bryozoa species suffered major extinctions. That day is coming again. If I hurt my fishing friends I am sorry but grasping at straws is better than ignoring the 6th extinction.

   http://www.mbl.edu/blog/calcification-in-changing-oceans-biological-bulletin/

JackTaylor

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #119 on: July 28, 2014, 03:20:28 PM »
Bruce,

#1. Good to hear NPR has activity on the west coast about conditions of fisheries.
East coast activity - from my 1960's "stomping grounds" -  linked below the dashed line.

#2.  Congratulations for not taking a NIMBY position on closing/protecting fisheries.
It must have took some soul searching to voice that - hope your fisherman peers are not too tough on you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I do not believe carbon caused the reduction in size of catches.  What's the opinion of others?

From NPR Article "Big Fish Stories Getting Littler" by Robert Krulwich
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler
with further reference from research work by Loren McClenachan
"Documenting Loss of Large Trophy Fish from the Florida Keys with Historical Photographs"
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR23_RD_10_McClenachan_09.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
A very interesting article

mid 1960's


mid 1980's


mid 2000's

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #120 on: July 28, 2014, 04:15:36 PM »
Jack, It is good to see you back. I am in complete agreement that to date fishing pressure can be held responsible for both a decline in catch rate as well as size of the larger ( older ) fish caught in a lot of areas. Local traditional fish management methods can be very effective at managing and maintaining stocks and the Pacific coast is a pretty good example of what success looks like if your looking for good examples of effective fish management. There are plenty of examples where it has failed however and there are plenty of reasons why including terrestrial inputs of fertilizer and sewage, increased marine mammal numbers, invasive species, and habitat modifications.
 I have spent a good part of my life in meetings with other fishermen and government regulators trying to manage fish resources and for the most part when honest fishermen and dedicated managers work at it we can do a pretty good job maintaining the health of fish stocks and maintain financially viable fisheries. Maybe sometimes fish aren't as big as they used to be but that isn't the only measure of a healthy stock and if it is important upper size limits can be a tool in your management bag to address it.
 I have come to the decision however that no amount of regulating local fish populations will be effective or sufficient if that management stops at the waters edge. Acidification and hypoxia are problems created on land and if we are going to save the oceans then changing how seven billion people go about their daily lives is critical. I was a fairly successful fish manager but providing answers for how we actually change 7 billion people is quite a challenge. It is far to easy for people to blame fishermen , wash their hands, and walk away. We need answers and not scapegoating. The Arctic Ocean looks like it will melt out some summer within our lifetime. It's melting will change weather patterns and food production for an overpopulated planet but changing the acidity of the oceans will outlive the damage we have done to the cryosphere. A hundred thousand years of hell for calcifiers, huge numbers of extinctions, and a compromised carbon sink is our collective contribution should we fail. Big fish - Small fish seems kinda minor in comparison .
   

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #121 on: August 13, 2014, 04:44:57 PM »
For most fisheries we have very little data to make management decisions other than catch data.
We call this " data poor ". Fisheries independent data, like recruitment numbers, demands $ and time and both are hard to come by.
 I am banging the drum trying to get some interest in developing some predictive models of how this all works out for at least one fishery that does have some decent numbers, my fishery. If anyone wonders why I post on the forum it is because there really isn't a single place on the web where
acidification is discussed other than posting science paper abstracts. So you my friends get to watch my struggles

 
Christina Frieder 2014 has just published a paper documenting fertilization success in Red Sea Urchins. This species of urchin has fisheries in Calif. Oregon , Washington , British Columbia and Alaska.
Fertilization success may be reduced 20% even under current seasonal pH conditions at 7.8pH and reductions of 79% may be happening in the next few decades as acidification and water conditions deteriorate to   7.5pH in parts of it's range by 2100.  The decreases in fertilization are linear as conditions for successful fertilization decline from 7.8pH down to 7.5pH. That is Red Sea Urchin will have a harder time successfully recruiting into the fishery as time progresses. 
  abstract for Frieder paper
 Ocean acidification impacts fertilization in some species of sea urchin, but whether sensitivity is great enough to be influenced by present-day pH variability has not been documented. In this study, fertilization in two congeneric sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus and S. franciscanus, was found to be sensitive to reduced pH, <7.50, but only within a range of sperm-egg ratios that was species-specific. By further testing fertilization across a broad range of pH, pH-fertilization curves were generated and revealed that S. purpuratus was largely robust to pH, while fertilization in S. franciscanus was sensitive to even modest reductions in pH. Combining the pH-fertilization response curves with pH data collected from these species’ habitat demonstrated that relative fertilization success remained high for S. purpuratus but could be as low as 79% for S. franciscanus during periods of naturally low pH. In order for S. franciscanus to maintain high fertilization success in the present and future, adequate adult densities, and thus sufficient sperm-egg ratios, will be required to negate the effects of low pH. In contrast, fertilization of S. purpuratus was robust to a broad range of pH, encompassing both present-day and future ocean acidification scenarios, even though the two congeners have similar habitats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both red and purple sea urchins have twenty two years of recruitment data collected at two week intervals from multiple sights along the California coast.
(Schroeder)
If acidification does differentially affect red sea urchin fertilization success this baseline dataset could be used to document future changes. Current analysis does not show any negative trend in red urchin settlement verses the hardier purple urchin.
Settlement studies do document recruitment into the fishery for red sea urchins, 
heavy settlement on the brush collectors is followed by strong recruitment years for new year classes recruiting into the fishery.
For  Red sea urchins we have data to begin populating a model about how red sea urchins may respond to projected changes in water chemistry and we have a control with the hardier purple sea urchin to test the accuracy of those projections.
There are also urchin density data sets that can inform potential density dependent
fertilization constraints. ( Channel Islands kelp monitoring dataset NPS ) ( Calif. Fish and Game dive surveys, Pete Kalvas ) and ( San Diego urchin monitoring, Pete Halmay) 
So questions might be 
 1) can fertilization success limit settlement success?
 2) does urchin density affect fertilization success - now and in the future?
 3) will the information we already have be sufficient to populate a model with data that can predict future impacts to the Red Sea Urchin fishery?
 4) are there management options that might address how density and consequent fertilization success can respond to potential problems?
   



JackTaylor

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #122 on: August 17, 2014, 01:25:50 PM »
Bruce Steele August 13, 2014.
"So you my friends get to watch my struggles"
Well continue to keep us posted.
Ocean "food" (seafood) is dear to my heart & belly.

Also, about the post above I made on "size of the catch"
some people are starting to discuss (blame) fertilizer run-off from the Mississippi River
and it's "dead zone" feeding the Gulf Stream which flows near Key West, Florida
as a contributing factor for reduction in size, not just over-fishing.  ?  ?  ?

morganism

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Artic sunlight driving co2 release in surface waters
« Reply #123 on: August 22, 2014, 12:45:46 AM »
http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-sunlight-microbes-key-co2-arctic.html

So, that seems to leave bacterial action as the methane producer ?

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #124 on: August 23, 2014, 03:01:57 AM »
Morganism, ASLR posted that link on his Antarctic forcing page today. I was in the " it's bacterial remineralization" camp so the whole notion that Particulate and Dissolved organic matter photo degrade at those percentages is all new territory for me. I need more reading before I can add anything on this one, just questions here.

F.Tnioli

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #125 on: August 25, 2014, 04:39:06 PM »
Jack, It is good to see you back. I am in complete agreement that to date fishing pressure can be held responsible for both a decline in catch rate as well as size of the larger ( older ) fish caught in a lot of areas. Local traditional fish management methods can be very effective at managing and maintaining stocks and the Pacific coast is a pretty good example of what success looks like if your looking for good examples of effective fish management. There are plenty of examples where it has failed however and there are plenty of reasons why including terrestrial inputs of fertilizer and sewage, increased marine mammal numbers, invasive species, and habitat modifications.
 I have spent a good part of my life in meetings with other fishermen and government regulators trying to manage fish resources and for the most part when honest fishermen and dedicated managers work at it we can do a pretty good job maintaining the health of fish stocks and maintain financially viable fisheries. Maybe sometimes fish aren't as big as they used to be but that isn't the only measure of a healthy stock and if it is important upper size limits can be a tool in your management bag to address it.
 I have come to the decision however that no amount of regulating local fish populations will be effective or sufficient if that management stops at the waters edge. Acidification and hypoxia are problems created on land and if we are going to save the oceans then changing how seven billion people go about their daily lives is critical. I was a fairly successful fish manager but providing answers for how we actually change 7 billion people is quite a challenge. It is far to easy for people to blame fishermen , wash their hands, and walk away. We need answers and not scapegoating. The Arctic Ocean looks like it will melt out some summer within our lifetime. It's melting will change weather patterns and food production for an overpopulated planet but changing the acidity of the oceans will outlive the damage we have done to the cryosphere. A hundred thousand years of hell for calcifiers, huge numbers of extinctions, and a compromised carbon sink is our collective contribution should we fail. Big fish - Small fish seems kinda minor in comparison .
 
A bit of offtopic: very well said, Bruce! Much pleasure to read (despite the subject being tragic) thoughts of a wise man. Prosit!

In response to your thoughts, leaving unnesessary details behind:

1. Plenty of reasons indeed. But one you didn't mention which is of special importance - is this: differencies between local ecosystems' endurance and strength are great, and science is still oblivious to most of them (due to excessive complexity, mainly). I.e., what works fine on one coast, - won't nesessarily work somewhere else, i guess; could even lead to disaster, sometimes. Worst thing is, we don't know and can't know where and how and why.

2. When honest specialists and intending to actually make a difference managers work well - yes, results happen. Thing is, with environment deteriorating, it'll be more and more difficult to "do a pretty good job", you know. Especially looking at what happens in economies and politics of most powerful countries of the globe. Limits to growth...

3. We've already failed - if you meant mankind. "We" built a monster - fossil-fuel-powered global industrial civilization. It won't stop. Last two decades of (generally practically complete) failues to limit GHG emissions (lest reduce them) - what other proof we need to realize: it is business as usual, and it WILL be business as usual as long as business "as usual" at all possible? I guess you know the answer... I guess you feel it, inside. 800 ppm CO2e this century (not even including polar clathrates) is a certainty for any who spent at least few months to study how modern industries actually function, who own them, what their demands and duties are, etc.


I'd plan accordingly. Even if it's cruel. Because to me, sillyness and mental blindness is worse than cruelty.


Good luck to us all.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #126 on: August 25, 2014, 07:02:50 PM »
F.Tnioli   1. Yes and without adequate foreknowledge we humans sometimes come crashing into environments where we do immense damage before we realize how badly we  have transgressed the bio-productivity limits not immediately obvious. Management of resources is benefited by a risk averse
decision process that honestly doesn't describe much of our history but still their are examples of good men and women living within limits. Limits they recognize and respect.
2. Yes and "pretty good"must sound kinda weak but I have to respect the fact we have so often exceeded our  carrying capacity and can't expect that the fisheries management examples I am most familiar with can actually stand the test of time. Motorized boats and therefore all modern fisheries
have less than 100 years of data to look at ( usually much less ). Not really enough info so again caution is warranted. There is really no way to manage what is coming our way over the next hundred years however. It is very popular to think we need to "adapt" to the coming worldwide surface ocean pH shift but who are we kidding?  These are changes of geologic scale crushed into a 100 year timeframe. I am not that good with economics but economics is going to meet the grim reaper , so much for economics...same timeframe.
3. We have already failed... Well all indications are full steam ahead and anything I might think of as a remedy would be viewed as a cataclysm otherwise so whether I said it or not ,there it is.
None of that darkness however should immobilize our efforts at building a better mousetrap.
So here we are.
 

F.Tnioli

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #127 on: August 26, 2014, 10:38:51 AM »
...
None of that darkness however should immobilize our efforts at building a better mousetrap.
So here we are.
 
Ah, this really depends on how you define "better", though.

Let me clarify this one, please. If by "better" you mean "higher production and/or lower costs system" (ecological, monetary, human resource - whatever costs there are), system which is intended to work within present global-industrial system (and only able to work in it - since without it, it'd quickly fall apart, lacking parts for repairs, power source to function, specialists to service it, etc), - then no, i have to disagree. The "darkness" as you called it (i prefer the term "bottleneck", since there is a chance it won't be "dark" everywhere humans will manage to survive through), - this very darkness, in my opinion, is exactly the sound and proper reason to stop our efforts in creating better mousetraps of the sort i described in this paragraph.

And here's why. Because there is other sort of mouse trap possible. Designed to work _without_ present global industrial system, but still significantly productive and, of course, allowing to maintain the resource(s) sustainably (no overuse). It's darn difficult to make anything of this sort, considering all involved uncertainties and requirement to use only most simple, easily locally reproducible tools and matherials. You see, it's quite probable that global industrial system won't die slowly "bit by bit"; cascade failures of systems and chains of supply after the point of critical stress within the global system will be passed - is likely. And by then, noone will have time to design "new mousetraps". Doing it now is the only option. That's why it is, in my opinion, quite the time already to stop making effort in improving old (currently existing) ones.

The main problem (for me) - is quite very simple: number of people who understand what i just described - is extremely very small; diffused within and among huge masses of modern citizens (specialists or not, - any subsociety), those who understand can't unite, can't even sufficiently often meet each other. And as proverbial of my people goes, "just one man - is not a soldier in the field"...

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #128 on: August 26, 2014, 04:51:56 PM »
F.Tnioli, Again I agree with what you have to say. I think many people have some notion of the  "bottleneck" or "darkness" ahead but when that will come is more difficult to predict than an ice free September at 90 degrees north. I don't know if it's because I am contrary, prescient, or just a little thick but I have a bit of a primitivist bent myself. I have mentioned before that I believe there are still residual examples of societies ( tribes ) living within the resource limits of their local habitat. I haven't had the desire to go join one of these( existing ) groups and I haven't ever met anyone who tried. Forming some modern equivalent would require more than an acceptance of a primitive tool-set , it would require the social structure that would cement a group together. I think a lot about the tools,and techniques for food production but unless the " bottleneck " happens while I am alive I doubt anyone feels like helping me  in the field and without that whatever I figure out will die with me. Short of getting experience before times get tough seems like a lot of people will be trying to figure this out in very difficult times. Resources even for a primitive existence aren't going to be at hands reach and sourcing the raw materials will require free movement. So getting through the bottleneck with your tribe and tool-set intact will require a lot of pre-planning and very good local knowledge of resources.
 So to some up, existing primitive societies and recreated versions will in my opinion have an advantage in a fast crash of civilization. Not many people want to go there voluntarily so likely very few will have the skill-set necessary to relearn what we walked away from a long time ago. Simple ain't easy. Getting along is part of that skill-set. 
 I would be interested in how you think Russians view primitive options? Is there anyone living years in their dacha  pursuing off grid locally sourced survival? Are there groups? Is the thought of a very simple life appealing to many people there? 
 P.S. This is the carbon cycle page but entertaining solutions is as important or more important than documenting the disaster. So thank you F.Tnioli

F.Tnioli

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #129 on: August 27, 2014, 03:05:15 PM »
F.Tnioli, Again I agree with what you have to say. I think many people have some notion of the  "bottleneck" or "darkness" ahead but when that will come is more difficult to predict than an ice free September at 90 degrees north. I don't know if it's because I am contrary, prescient, or just a little thick but I have a bit of a primitivist bent myself. I have mentioned before that I believe there are still residual examples of societies ( tribes ) living within the resource limits of their local habitat. I haven't had the desire to go join one of these( existing ) groups and I haven't ever met anyone who tried. Forming some modern equivalent would require more than an acceptance of a primitive tool-set , it would require the social structure that would cement a group together. I think a lot about the tools,and techniques for food production but unless the " bottleneck " happens while I am alive I doubt anyone feels like helping me  in the field and without that whatever I figure out will die with me. Short of getting experience before times get tough seems like a lot of people will be trying to figure this out in very difficult times. Resources even for a primitive existence aren't going to be at hands reach and sourcing the raw materials will require free movement. So getting through the bottleneck with your tribe and tool-set intact will require a lot of pre-planning and very good local knowledge of resources.
 So to some up, existing primitive societies and recreated versions will in my opinion have an advantage in a fast crash of civilization. Not many people want to go there voluntarily so likely very few will have the skill-set necessary to relearn what we walked away from a long time ago. Simple ain't easy. Getting along is part of that skill-set. 
 I would be interested in how you think Russians view primitive options? Is there anyone living years in their dacha  pursuing off grid locally sourced survival? Are there groups? Is the thought of a very simple life appealing to many people there? 
 P.S. This is the carbon cycle page but entertaining solutions is as important or more important than documenting the disaster. So thank you F.Tnioli
We are doing offtopic here, but i sincerely hope that moderators will allow us to continue, considering that 1) what we discuss is actually important, 2) we arrived at it organically from discussing the topic, and 3) some few other people may find our here discussion useful for themselves.

In response to your post, 1st, let me express darn big pleasure: not often i am understood so well. You give me a breath of fresh air time and time again, Bruce. Thank you!

In general, i spent years considering what will be and what will not be possible in the truly post-industrial future (currently used "post-industrial" label, applied to countries which "went past" mainly industrial ways of development - is imho wrong; because these societies did not, so far, and most likely will not in their current scale and shape, manage to remove their dependencies on large-scale industrial processes; and these societies did not "stop" to be industrial ones - they merely "exported" their industrial processes to countries/regions remote from their main centers). Perhaps, some of considerations i arrived to - will clarify some points mentioned in your last message.

1. The exact date of the global industrial collapse - yep, indeed, difficult to impossible to predict. Perhaps one big and really competent think tank could do so, may be few did already (making the result available only to governments and/or corporate sponsors of such a research, but not to public, of course). However, even i - a single man, who spent few years to study where we (mankind) are going, - even i myself can see enough to be quite sure that (most of) global industrial system will fail to function within this century for sure, possibly as early as in 2030s, at best - as late as 2070s or 2080s. The fact itself - that it will fail, - appears to be undeniable to me, considering whole range of required materials and expected events (availability and reserves of most important metals, rare earth elements, soil fertility and climate viability for industrial agriculture, absence of sudden and large sea level increases - to ensure continuous functioning of ports worldwide, which ferry ever increasing amounts of industrially produced goods between countries and continents - Greenland will sooner or later make a big "surprise" here, when large part(s) of its much warmed up ice sheet will slide into the ocean, having lots of melt water underneath it - lakes of melt water between ice sheet and Greenland bedrock are already detected, as well as big parts of ice sheet naer bedrock which have liquid water "embedded" between ice crystals - mixed ice/water phase). My point here is: there is both sufficient certainty in the shutdown of global industrial system itself, and enough certainty about timeframe during which it will happen, to arrive to the simple conclusion: whomever will start to prepare for the bottleneck and past-bottleneck living earlier than later - will get an advantage during and after the bottleneck. Especially considering dwindling opportunities to do such preparation in many facets of our lives and systems as time goes by.

2. Primitivist bent. Bruce, you are not alone. The dream of "simple life" is shared by quite a few humans out there. I like this dream myself, too. I like the song "Bingo, Bango, Bongo (i don't want to leave the Congo)" extremely very much. But - only as a dream. In reality, we won't have such a luxury, i am sure. I mean: in order to "get back to primitive ways", to return to "hunter-gatherer ways of life, which are natural for a human being" (as some advocate), - there is one fat requirement: to do so, one needs the environment which can provide and support such a lifestyle. Our ancestors did not live in a vacuum; rather, they had the luxury of relatively (in compare to our days) stable climate, lots of flora and fauna now extinct (and the process is not complete - 6th great extinction is going on as we speak) which, back then, was all parts of very healthy ecosystems (in compare to present days), and seas, in particular, were not so acidic at all, too (not to mention how much more fish and other sea life they had, back then). Rivers full of fish, and lots of crystal clear water sources which now simply do not exist. Nowadays, mega-fauna is long gone, lots of eco-systems are on the verge of collapse, quite many are already dead; heck, half of forests which planet had in the beginning of the 20th century - are already wiped out by us humans during last ~100 years or so (and deforestation goes on, faster than ever, last i heard), - you see what i mean? Extrapolate such trends into the future, some 50 years, give or take. Don't forget to add an extra jump of surface temperatures, which will happen in a few years after most of currently emitted industrial aerosols settle down (as a result of the shutdown of most of global industrial civilization - no more continuous and huge (net global) source of those aerosols, most of industries being stopped), thus producing significant "brightening" effect in the athmosphere (and corresponding increase of surface temperatures). And don't forget to add significant radioactive contamination, which will be the result of popping here-and-there old-generations reactors of nuclear power plants (without grid electricity, and with diesel generators' fuel out, those won't remain stable for long). And possibly some other unpleasant things we simply can not foresee at this time.

Where exactly will we be able to survive in "primitive" ways during the bottleneck, i wonder? Granted, few areas lucky enough to retain relatively habitable climate, and sufficiently far from any popping nuclear power plant, and sufficiently pristine and sturdy in terms of their eco-systems - will provide environment suitable for rather primitive human society. I'd bet on relatively high-altitude (2000+ meters) platous, remote of any present industrial and population centers, in moderate or even subpolar belts, and at least some 1000+ kilometers from any ocean, preferably not any close to any tectonically active region, and preferably with some large lake within it (some 200+ square kilometers). I can tell you how many such places i know exist nowadays: zero. Earth is big, though, and i am not a geographist; possibly few such places exist, but i am unaware about them. Also possible that "primitive" humans will manage in few other locations, ones not like the type i described. However, for vast majority of now alive humans, there will be no chance to get into such a community/place - simply because of how few and small and remote such communities and places will be. I have no illusions about myself: most likely, i won't be able to make into one, too.

So you see, in general, i don't think there can be any reliable "way back to Congo" for us. Furthermore, majority of presently surviving remains of tribes and indigenous people, as far as i know, are just a shadow of their former strength; in other words, as people/communities/ways_of_life - most of "primitive people" are deteriorating (much like the rest of the biosphere in general). I can ask myself: if people who were living primitive ways all their life, with hundreds of generations of their ancestors also living the same way - and thus providing now-alive aborigens with lots of genes and knowledge needed to thrive in the wild, - if even those people are increasingly unable to survive within their own habitat, - then how i, a typical city dweller with some outdated farming experience, can hope to do well as any sort of hunter-gatherer, especially after above mentioned effects of global industrial system collapse? If i ask myself that, then my answer is: i can't hope for that.

As an extra: you may be interested in the story of Lykov family, widely available online, for example here: http://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-last-lykov-000001-v20n4 . You never met such people, you said; perhaps it'd be interesting to read about such people and see photographs (pretty many are available online) about them. Their story - is exactly what happened when the dream of "getting back to nature" (which they had) was actually pursued in practice. They were few people - a single family, - who went away from civilization, into the wild siberian forest (taiga), and lived there for decades; back in 1930s...1970s, the last survivor of the family (2nd generation) - a single woman, now old, - was still alive in 2013, possibly she's still there, living in the forest. She refuses to leave; much like Daniel in the "Bingo Bango Bongo" song. They didn't end well. Their forest-born children lost much of their ability to speak (and to think - in a usual sense of the word), despite that fact they had and often read their Bible. They had LOTS of quite pristine eco-system (and rather clean - middle 20th century) to support themselves, and climate was definitely better than today's (and much better than future climate), much less forest fires (though even back then, at least once they almost succumbed to a forest fire). Yet, despite that quite healthy and vast natural environment, - starvation was often present; one of them died to it (the mother), sometimes they had to eat bark to survive. Details of their story bring much light on other practical dangers of "the primitive way". And when i try to imagine how well "neo-Lykovs" would manage during some 2050s or beyond, - i can't get rid of the suspicion that many times more intensive (than during 2nd half of 20th century) siberian forest fires (which is very likely future of the region) - would be their doom after quite a few years of such a living... If not less than that. Because the fire itself is not the most ugly thing - but what remains after it, is (in terms of human survival in such a burned region for several years / few decades afterwards).

3. Tool set. By all means, i didn't mean "primitive" tool set. It will be much simpler than sophisticated modern industrial designs, yes; it will have to be made outta most durable/abundant remains of global industrial matherials and/or outta easily reproducible local matherials, yes; but by no means it has to be "primitive". Quite the opposite: the amount of good thinking, invention and smart design put into those "new tool sets" - has to be high; the higher, the better. Thankfully, lots of modern engineering and scientific knowledge about strength and property of matherials will remain, and even more of it is available now for any entity who will construct mousetraps for the future before the global industrial shutdown. This was not the case when old - medieval, etc - systems (watermills, windmills, etc) were designed and built. That's why new mousetraps shouldn't be, can't be and won't be "primitive"; and frankly, remains of mankind will need every last bit of efficiency possible, so this is indeed important.
->

F.Tnioli

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #130 on: August 27, 2014, 03:05:47 PM »
->
4. Social structure. Indeed, one of most important "mousetraps" to make for the bottleneck and past - because ability to co-exist and peacefully cooperate on a large scale is quite a "mouse" to be "caught", if mankind intends to have any hope of long-term survival. I've spent months considering what can be done here. Obviously, free-market capitalism (if to be formal - i mean capitalistic oligarchy, which is inevitable in any society which postulates "free market" as its most cornerstone feature) won't do: owners are, by definition, unable to properly maintain "commons". This produces "externalities". Environment suffers, eventually - to the point of becoming uninhabitable. Well known "tragedy of commons" is actually a big part of the current inability of the present global technological civilization to steer away from the path of environmental destruction. Inherent to capitalism, this means that capitalistic society won't do. Elements of it will certainly remain, this i do not doubt. But the governing social system will be something else, i am sure.

What, then, it'd be?

I am extremely pessimistic about communism. Born in USSR, and lived in USSR and Russia for over a third of a century, i know about it "from inside". Not only it was never actually achieved in USSR (nor in any other country or nation of the modern times), - it never was any close to achieving it in practice. 70 years of "building it" by a geopolitical block eventually nearly 1/4 of the world large (counting Warsaw pact countries, USSR "friends" in Africa and Asia and such), - and still it wasn't even close. Why? Reason is simple: communism is very against human nature. "Every human for himself" - is exactly opposite state to communism in its pure form ("every human for community" - that's why it's called "communism", you know). And yet, ultimately, "every human for himself" - is the "last resort" natural state of a human being. We suffer, experience joy, love, and death - individually. We're not ants. Communism won't ever work.

I am equally pessimistic about dictatorships and any sort of police-state, surveilance state, etc. It's possible, if not very likely, that at some stage, most or even all societies will have to become those, for a while, yes. In fact, i see lots of signs that some of most "developed" nations are already turning into those sorts. "Hard times call for hard measures" and all. But long-term though and past bottleneck, those won't do: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because of such corruption, those societies are always temporary - where-ever in history i look, i can't find any force-based society to persist for much long (except some ancient ones and primitive ones - but i don't think the future is about stone age or hunter-gatherer ways of life).

Anarchy... Some folks seriously propose that. Few, though. I really doubt it'd work. Some folks will always prefer fighting and robbing others. Giving those complete freedom to act? Won't end well, i bet. In early USSR, lots of anarchy was present in late 1910s and early 1920s. Roaming bands and lots of factions, some independant "field commanders", etc. Extremely widespread starvation and death of millions (known as "golodomor") was the result. Lots of good people died even before starvation, - simply killed for whatever reserves of food and/or other goods they managed to stockpile. This is a lesson my country will remember for a long, long time.

Feudalism. This is, surprisingly, the best of all social-order systems mentioned so far, in my opinion. Obviously, not to be used in its medieval forms; something much more like multi-layered and multi-form kind of federation. I see efficient elements of this approach in quite many countries and on different levels. Examples:
 - EU is definitely an entity and in many regards - a structured society, despite all differencies of nations which make it. However, there is clear separation between "common" and "private" matters in EU: say, managing Euro currency - is a common thing, and no single nation controls it (OK, some are not allowed to participate - but still, no single nation controls Euro issues solely and completely); but, say, managing national immigration issues - is every country's own business. Etc.
 - Russia is a federation now. Nearly 90 members (one can call those "states", if so desired). Each one state has lots of freedom within its own territory, yet in the same time - lots of duties towards the federal government, its neighbours and federal budget. Basically, it's sort of "do what every state has to do, don't spoil the life of other states, pay your taxes - and then you're free to shape yourself as you see fit". USA is roughly the same system, as far as i know.
 - Even on most local level, i can see elements of federalism/fuedalism. When some small town in USA has a criminal problem - whom they rely on? Yep, on their sheriff. Who's sheriff? A person chosen locally (either by local folks or by local authorities - doesn't really matter) who is "the law" in his town. And as long as the problem is entirely within the town - nobody has higher ability to control how the solution proceeds than the sheriff (even if "federals" come in and try to command, - it is the sheriff who knows all things about local "who" and "why" and "how", so if he so desires, he may only formally cooperate with federals, still controlling how the case is solved, himself). Same thing in Russia, actually: the only negligible differencies is that russian word for "sheriff" is not so simple ("uchastkoviy"), and it's not local folks to appoint one - instead, local branch of ministry of internal affairs appoints one officer per every small town / village. Though if people are not happy with him, they have ways to get the guy replaced, of course.

Democracy. I mean actual working democracy. Rare thing, in practice. And highly inefficient. The idea of allowing large number of nonn-specialists to decide on matters which demand careful and competent consideration - amazes me. In a bad sense. Thankfully, nobody has an idea to allow democractic process when selecting engineers who design and maintain nuclear power stations. Yet, wrong leaders of large countries can do even much more harm than wrong guy working on a nuclear reactor: those folks can harm millions of even billions other humans _intentionally_, and using professional killers (i.e., armies). Worst of all, they often pretend to do it legally. And still, somehow, even most stupid drunkard of legal age can come in and vote for one or for other. And last nail - democracy is darn inefficient way to find answers to improtant questions. If we'd take every important (for most people of a country) question and put them on a referendum - then most people would simply spend the entirety of their lives reading and putting marks in voting sheets, eh.

That's quite it, as far as i can recall... Unless something cathegorically new would be invented, i expect future social structure to be further evolved and adapted to changing conditions form of federation. The concept of separating issues into "local ones" and "common ones", and establishing rules to deal with common ones, - rules accepted by all involved parties, and enforced by majority of involved parties whenever some one (or few) of parties would attempt to violate those rules, - such a system seems both efficient and long-term sustainable (if implemented well), to me. One additional reason to utilize it which is well known - is ability of federal system to work despite massive differencies between parties. This is true for all levels; in Russia, there are many nations, and some members of the Federation are very, very different from russians and are quite autonomous in most regards (for example, Tatarstan); even on personal level, - whenever individuals clearly define what exactly are issues which are to be solved together, and define acceptable methods to solve them, - it is usually no problem to gather and solve any such matters even if individuals are very different human beings between themselves. For example, any active member of a typical professional union - knows very well what i am talking about. :)

The only real difficulty (to say the least; very challenging) - is for all levels of federations to actually become 1) able and 2) willing to formulate, en-procedure and maintain _all_ common issues of importance. I see definite movements towards this direction. "Clean air acts" and lots of other actually enforced "common rules of the game" - are making very real and very positive net impact. As we go through the bottleneck and past, much more of that will have to be done. Whether remains of mankind will be able to do that, or not - i do not know. They better.

Oh, and just "by the way": what then i consider USA to be, today? I think, nowadays it's a hybrid of a police state with a capitalistic oligarchy, with a good portion of inverted totalitarianism (it's "face" being a democracy, of course, and its "arms" being all the control and manipulation though the mass media) on top. Lots of good observations about it come from one of greatest minds of our days - Noam Chomsky, and those observations of his are especially valuable since he is the resident of the country. And of course, lots of old good american traditions are still alive, and people's spirit is still alive. Many/much of that - i respect very much. All those political and social elements together form the society of USA, with all its contrasts and strangely opposing things somehow existing in parallel. Indeed, this one country is one of most curious creations of modern man.

5. "Whatever i figure out will die with me" - this is likely, but not inevitable. Look, just one example: this thing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault - was initially proposed by someONE, designed by someONE, its contruction was led by someONE, etc. There is always some above-zero (even if small) chance that you (me, anyone) will 1) "figure something out" first, and then 2) meet people who will make use of it later. Besides, even if mousetraps we'd create would vanish with us, - still, we could die content that we've done our part, and with a hope someone will still discover our work after our death and will make good use of it. History knows such examples, both in scientific and/or engineering/inventing fields of knowledge.


6. Off-grid survival, small communities present, "dacha" life, etc.
In Russia, there is no relatively widespread "business" of survivalism like there is in USA. Fine books like "Beyond collapse: surviving and rebuilding civilization from scratch" (by the way, this one is available for free in electronic form from the author's website) - in Russia there is nothing even remotely similar available for russian-speaking public. In the same time, though, yes, there is that russian "dacha" thing - lots of families have their own small houses and some land some few...few_dozens kilometers from the city the live in most of the time, and most of those have people growing all sorts of food for themselves. Just yesterday, i've been reading about some folks near Moscow growing watermelons and grapes on their dacha - if you'd know details about Moscow region climate just few decades ago, you'd say the same thing interviewer said: "WOW". Just one more sign of global warming to me, though. Anyhows, i guess your question is more about "what you think about all those people who prepare by getting some land, settling down there (at least part-time), learning to live off the land, etc".

My answer would probably surprise you. I think, all those folks - are misguided, and will eventually vanish (ok, let's be fair - they'll die). Lykov family (link above) - is one badly made attempt of this "i/my_family will go away and make everything we need ourselves" motto. Sure, modern "Lykovs" have diesels, and lots of good supplies, and - often - quite many good neighbours around. But what they lack - is systematic approach. They can't make/replace every last tool they need to go on. They can't address - in a tolerable manner, - every possible disaster which may head their way. They can't defend themselves against anything larger than a few bandits working together (exceptions exist, but as soon as we talk some artillery - are insignificant). It is silly to expect human conflict to cease as conditions worsen. Modern armed conflicts are just an extra confirmation of this. So you see, i reject this approach. To me, it is obvious that
 - without sufficiently large-scale cooperation (i talk at least a society of dozens thousands souls),
 - without rather detailed specialization (over 200 hundreds distinct specialties at least),
 - without some form of sustainable and reliable information technology which does not depend on electronic media (sooner or later, large enough solar flare will wipe most of modern electronic equipment out, astrophysicists know that for a fact, it'd take at least few years to restore networks and databanks, and there will lots of information lost completely),
 - without some smart and well implemented defensive measures, features and forces, -
no human society will have any significant chances to make it through the bottleneck with significant part of its culture and knowledge and its civilization remaining functional.

Yes, i know what quite a few folks in USA expect that "folks will hole down on their own, or with their family, or with family and as a part of their neighbourhood, and they will have enough resources to live through the worst of SHTF situation, and after that, those individuals and groups will naturally cooperate for mutual benefit, and new entities will emerge - local cities, states, etc". Personally, i disagree with that. I expect much bigger rampage of armed and dangerous people roaming around, taking what they want by force, and shooting those who "holed down" in droves. This period of "force rules" will last within most of "developed" countries for way more than a year or two, i think. When it'd be over, too few and too little (both humans and matherial items) will be left to "unite" and "form" new "cities" or "states". That's why for me, issues of defense and security are ahead of issues of piling up food and enforcing one's house. And, of course, one can only ensure defense and security when one is a part of a large enough force which operates in favorable enough conditions. If one of most fertile regions of Europe - Ukraine, - suffered several millions dead to starvation during much more favorable for agriculture climate than what we expect past 2050 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor ) when merciless dictator (Stalin) came to power, - then i really do not expect most of those who now "learn to live off the land" to be able to enjoy the fruits of their own labor any much (if at all) after some point, except if they are well protected against external threats. Methods of protection vary, there are quite a few. The only reasonable case when few people can actually avoid being robbed of their posessions regularly (and likely, their very life at some point) - is being very remote from most humans alive. Small remote island, this sort of thing. But then, it's again Lykovs' fate - by isolation...

I plan accordingly. I see the future for people who understand values and efficiency of specialization, large-scale cooperation, efficient (professional) defense, effective internal (within the society) peacekeeping, and proper care and account for common goods. For the rest... I don't.

morganism

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #131 on: August 28, 2014, 10:27:21 PM »
any chance some methanogen is using this to break methane, and in the process creating the huge amounts of carbon tet NASA just found ?

There dosn't seem to be many other mechanisms availible, but they have found bacteria using vanadium and iron and cobalt. maybe not that big a stretch

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-benzene.html

F.Tnioli

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #132 on: August 29, 2014, 09:55:04 AM »
any chance some methanogen is using this to break methane, and in the process creating the huge amounts of carbon tet NASA just found ?

There dosn't seem to be many other mechanisms availible, but they have found bacteria using vanadium and iron and cobalt. maybe not that big a stretch

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-benzene.html
"This"? I doubt. Methane - CH4, - doesn't require complex catalysts to be "broken". Simple oxygen will do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph , you know. As for their ability to produce carbon tetrachloride (i guess this is what you refer to as "carbon tet"), - i think that certain ferments/enzimes/whatever are indeed used by those bacteria, but it's nothing really special. The strength of chemical bonds within CCl4 molecula is much, much higher than strength of bonds within CH4 molecula, since both carbon and hydrogen are nearly neutral elements, while chlorine is highly electronegative element. Granted, HCl forms somewhat easier than CCl4 (if i remember my inorganic chemistry course right), but the differense is not that big, significantly forming one instead of the other should be not a huge problem for a living cell. The only moment where the bacteria really needs some good catalyst (enzyme, ferment, whatever) - is when it "extracts" chlorine from (overabundant in the ocean) NaCl molecula. Frankly, this is extremely common biochemical process, which happens even within human body, and provides Na+ and Cl- ions for lots of important biochemical processes. For all animals and humans, the enzyme "responsible" for the key part of the process - is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%2B/K%2B-ATPase , and i wouldn't be surprised if those bacteria use very same thing as well. I suspect that the enzyme is probably nearly as old as cellular life itself, - i.e. some 1+ billion years, eh.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 11:10:11 AM by F.Tnioli »

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #133 on: August 29, 2014, 09:33:28 PM »
F.Tnioli, I don't know if you read this in an early post on this page, sorry for reposting, but I wrote this and it was printed in "National Fisherman Magazine" 2008.

 http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kwing/media/Steele_OceanAcidification.pdf

It took some reading to get to where I could write something. So to be blunt I had my " Oh **** "
moment about a decade ago.
Total anthropogenic Carbon emissions were, like my article said, in the range of 500 gt Carbon back then but cumulative totals will be very close to 1000 gt Carbon by 2050.  If things are still accelerating and emissions continue at the 2.5% increase rate, somewhere around 2050 we pass 1000 gt Carbon totals.
( sorry for the total rewrite )
So as a response I have redoubled my concentration on food. For me it is something I was already committed to and including energy inputs into every decision about farming or producing food has changed my farming efforts and interests. It is something I can get lost in...on purpose. Hardly an escape but headed down that path.
 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 10:35:32 PM by Bruce Steele »

F.Tnioli

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #134 on: September 02, 2014, 10:07:31 AM »
...
Total anthropogenic Co2 emissions were, like my article said, in the range of 500 gt Co2 back then but cumulative totals will be very close to 1000 gt Co2 by 2020. ...
"Escaping" from the reality? It's the path of many. Must admit, i have my ways to do it too, and i do it rather often. "Only humans", eh. It helps to remain (relatively) sane, perhaps, - but it doesn't help with the big picture. I know it, i bet you know it, and probably it can't be changed, but still i feel... irritation about it. Equally so about myself and about others whenever i see them performing some "escaping", whatever form it gets.

And as a technical note: with all respect, Bruce, i am not sure where you get those numbers from. Let me show you this: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsFromFuelCombustionHighlights2013.pdf , page 132, figure 1.

As you can see, that's some 41 years (1971...2011), with 1971 being ~14Gt CO2 annual total, and 2011 being ~32Gt CO2 annual total. The graph is not exactly linear, but not hugely far from it; 1st approximation (as if it'd be linear trend) allows to calculate total CO2 amount emitted buring those 41 years: 41*(14+32)/2=943Gt CO2. Even if we substruct some ~50Gt for the fact that it was not exactly linear growth, we still have ~900Gt of CO2 emitted during those 41 years. CO2 emissions grew since then, last 3 years - 2012, 2013 and 2014 - add ~100Gt CO2 on top of that. So you see, mankind _already_ emitted 1000Gt CO2. In fact, this "milestone" was passed quite a few years ago already, since few more hundreds gigatons of CO2 was emitted between the start of industrial revolution and 1971.


Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #135 on: September 02, 2014, 10:27:32 PM »
F.Tnioli, It is such an amateur mistake, but those numbers should be Gt carbon not Gt Co2.
The trillionth ton site has cumulative totals.
http://trillionthtonne.org/
The trillion ton carbon number is associated with both the + 2C temp. projections and atmospheric doubling at 560 ppm. The cumulative numbers are sometimes strictly fossil fuel emissions ,sometimes ff + cement manufacture, and sometimes ff + cement + land use changes.  Carbon totals can easily be converted into Co2 by multiplying C  times 3.67 = Co2
 I will go back and fix my error in above link

 Re. escape, Labor is a palliative, and not a very good one at that. I have worked alone almost all my life, underwater or in the field. Much time to mull things over. Farming does connect both the problem and also some potential solutions IMO.  To some extent " escape " was also intended as a double entendre, that is some escape from reality ( pain )and some escape from culpability.
 I reread your posts above a couple more times. I guess I purposely avoided the security issues you raised. L.A. is less than a tank of gas away. If things get very bad this would be a very unlikely place to circle the wagons. I can however reach  dozens of remote water sources and I can both identify and prepare some native foods so they won't poison you but provide emergency rations. I know where to locally source primitive weapons components and fashion at least bows, arrows and arrowheads. Even a very small group will attract attention and defending against what will exodus the city will be simply to avoid them first ,then outlast them. Not something I spend time on , just an interest in native culture and native foods.       

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #136 on: September 04, 2014, 05:09:23 PM »
Here is a National Geo article that starts with the 2 trillion tons in cumulative Co2 emissions to date. Checking with thetrillionthton site we are on track to add another 1.5 trillion by 2040. The article makes some reference to planting mangroves and seagrass beds to mitigate the O/A. I have a hard time with the "feel good" message but it's so popular to end things that way. I keep hearing the public has " climate fatigue " from various professional writers.... so make nice endings... That is, manufacture them.

 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/02/ocean-acidification-from-domestic-to-international/

ritter

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #137 on: September 04, 2014, 06:52:59 PM »
"climate fatigue"--that's funny. We don't have any idea what climate fatigue is yet.

I too get tired of the feel good summary. Tell me the truth, doc, and let me plan around that.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1744
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #138 on: September 04, 2014, 11:17:28 PM »
"climate fatigue"--that's funny. We don't have any idea what climate fatigue is yet.

I too get tired of the feel good summary. Tell me the truth, doc, and let me plan around that.

you want answers?



Ok.

The simple fact is that speleotherm analysis of Russian permafrost caves shows that at 1.5C above pre-industrial times (.7C above now) a significant portion (about 60% of current) permafrost starts to melt.  This is a positive feedback that is NOT being currently considered by the IPCC.

at CURRENT greenhouse gas forcing levels we have already locked in .8C of additional warming (this is without additional feedbacks).

the additional feedbacks will significantly reduce the amount of naturally sequestered carbon from our atmosphere, making 65%-70% of our emissions remain in the atmosphere compared to our current burden of 55% (a term called "Atmospheric Fraction") - [This is ALSO not modeled by the IPCC]

with additional feedbacks, and with currently scheduled CO2 emissions over the next 50 years,  We are going to force this earth to endure a 5-7C rise by 2100.

This warming, on par with the warming that occurred from the depths of the last ice age to today, will create massive natural feedback mechanisms.  This will be a fundamental transformation of the surface of the earth, on par with the transformation that occurred at the end of the last ice age, in the space of 100 years.  This fundamental and irreversible transformation will produce a significant loss of sustainability to the majority of our current food production and population resource locations throughout the world.  It will also entail a complete collapse of the Amazon basin from tropical rainforest into a savannah grassland, the expansion of the Sonora, Gobi and Sahara deserts a full 15' latitude further North AND South.  The complete destruction, by fire, of the rainforests and peat of Indonesia and the total collapse of the current boreal forest and the conflagration of the boreal peat throughout the Northern Hemisphere.  This warming, unprecedented since the "Great Dying" of the Permian Triassic (P-Tr) event will produce a warming at a scale and speed that has NEVER BEEN EXPERIENCED BY PLANET EARTH SINCE LIFE EVOLVED HERE 3.5 BILLION YEARS AGO.   


.
.

by 2300 there will be no permanent ice left on planet earth below 27,000 feet elevation.  Globally averaged temperatures will be +16C above pre-industrial levels.  CO2 will be at 5,500ppmv and CH4 will be at 230 ppmv  CH4 efficacy will be 5X what it currently is today due to the collapse of the hydroxyl sink.   Average global specific humidity will rise to 92%.  Hydrogen sulfide and tropospheric Ozone will be major contributors to climate forcing.

by 2300 globally average sea level in the mid Atlantic northern hemisphere will be 200+ meters above today.  Most of this sea level rise is due to thermal expansion and the effect of the loss of Antarctica's gravitational pull on the world's oceans.

you want a plan?

we need to reduce ALL anthropogenic GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 to have even the barest chance of maintaining modern civilization.  Even with this we will have to employ massive atmospheric recovery programs to reduce carbon dioxide abundances below 350PPM

AT THE SAME TIME AS THE PERMAFROST AND LAND ARE RELEASING MORE AND MORE CO2.

well,
you asked.

« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 09:10:13 AM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #139 on: September 04, 2014, 11:43:14 PM »
Jai, Under that scenario the average surface ocean pH will be reduced to 7.3 by 2300( Caldeira 2003 ) I don't think you get 200+ meters sea level so maybe you could give a reference. Not that 200 feet or 200 meters will make any difference to whatever scraps of " Modern civilization " remains. We either change course now or your prognosis seems valid, not that national geo would print it. You realize most people think we're nuts.

ritter

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #140 on: September 05, 2014, 01:07:06 AM »
"climate fatigue"--that's funny. We don't have any idea what climate fatigue is yet.

I too get tired of the feel good summary. Tell me the truth, doc, and let me plan around that.

you want answers?
....
well,
you asked.
;D

Yes, I did ask. But it was intended sort of as asking the doc the prognosis when you already know it's terminal. An excellent summary.

Bruce, I'm coming to discover that more and more people have reached similar conclusions. But the masses definitely think we're nuts!

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1744
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #141 on: September 05, 2014, 07:13:20 AM »
Jai, Under that scenario the average surface ocean pH will be reduced to 7.3 by 2300( Caldeira 2003 ) I don't think you get 200+ meters sea level so maybe you could give a reference. Not that 200 feet or 200 meters will make any difference to whatever scraps of " Modern civilization " remains. We either change course now or your prognosis seems valid, not that national geo would print it. You realize most people think we're nuts.

Bruce

I figured 80M of rise from glacial melt
another 20M rise from gravitational effects (loss of mass in Antarctica affecting the mid atlantic)
and a full100M of rise by 2300 as oceans warm an additional 10C above current temperatures (whole mass).

I significantly overestimated the thermal expansion, I have not looked at the long-term prognosis before.  the thermal expansion in this scenario is only 1% for a 7C warming (another estimate)  so this expansion was significantly overstated.

good catch.

revised level = ~110M  enough to swallow the golden gate, London and Brooklyn bridges.

The only reason they might think we are nuts is because they do not have the time/skills/effort to figure it out for themselves.  They rely on biased sources to summarize and package their information, or even worse, gather their information from heresay and watercooler content.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 10:00:52 AM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #142 on: September 09, 2014, 06:00:27 PM »
Forming some modern equivalent would require more than an acceptance of a primitive tool-set , it would require the social structure that would cement a group together.

From what I see, the denial is strong enough of both collapse and viable strategies for dealing with it, that such groups will only be cemented together when they are facing survival and it becomes a necessary for survival itself. That, of course, suggests a high probability of poor planning and preparation and a probable lack of long term strategy in most instances (which is what I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to counter).

I think a lot about the tools,and techniques for food production but unless the " bottleneck " happens while I am alive I doubt anyone feels like helping me  in the field and without that whatever I figure out will die with me. Short of getting experience before times get tough seems like a lot of people will be trying to figure this out in very difficult times. Resources even for a primitive existence aren't going to be at hands reach and sourcing the raw materials will require free movement. So getting through the bottleneck with your tribe and tool-set intact will require a lot of pre-planning and very good local knowledge of resources.

Getting through the bottleneck as you propose also then requires your local habitat remains habitable (including long term for your descendants) and that the resources you need remain present there - both of those far from certain. That's why I prefer an initial high mobility approach myself (although of course that likely also cannot be sustained indefinitely, and risks still apply to an ultimate site/region of settlement).

P.S. This is the carbon cycle page but entertaining solutions is as important or more important than documenting the disaster. So thank you F.Tnioli

I have a whole forum attempt that would welcome discussions of solutions along these lines, if one can get past the problem that it might not be read by anyone much for however long.

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #143 on: September 09, 2014, 06:05:59 PM »
Their story - is exactly what happened when the dream of "getting back to nature" (which they had) was actually pursued in practice.

My understanding is these people were most certainly not "getting back to nature" - they were fleeing political oppression (of a potentially lethal nature), and fled into the wilderness with minimal planning and preparation.

In that context - notwithstanding that they didn't do a lot more than just survive - their achievements are remarkable and a testament to what even a tiny number of unprepared people could do. A well organised and prepared small group could potentially do much better - indeed my planning is predicated around the scope for such groups to rebuild advanced civilisations (over extended multi-generational timescales, I grant, not in our lifetimes).

morganism

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #144 on: September 19, 2014, 10:22:26 PM »
some geo-engineering discussion here. Limestone sequestration, and using water pumped up with oil to clean other process streams, of Co2

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/ocean-acification-mitigation-deatils.html#more

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #145 on: September 20, 2014, 05:32:24 AM »
Morganism, Although it is true that the addition of limestone will change the saturation state of aragonite in seawater it also includes fossil fuel use to mine, crush and transport the limestone.
Net benefit ?  As we add more Co2 to the atmosphere we can predict how the future ocean surface pH will respond. Without addressing the Co2 emission trends any attempt at mitigating local seawater conditions will quickly return to global trend lines when local additions of limestone stop. Net benefit?
 The transport of alkalinity in rivers does vary with the geology of the watershed . Those watersheds delivering high levels of alkalinity will in estuary conditions resist acidification better than watersheds delivering naturally low pH fresh water with low levels of alkalinity.If one is prepared to fight acidification by artificially augmenting riverine alkalinity then some rivers / estuaries will require less engineering than others.
Again fruitless without addressing cause...>Co2 emissions. Not saying it won't be attempted. 

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2011
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #146 on: September 22, 2014, 05:17:18 AM »
Scientists Report Global Rise in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

   
Global emissions of greenhouse gases jumped 2.3 percent in 2013 to record levels, scientists reported Sunday, in the latest indication that the world remains far off track in its efforts to control global warming.

    The emissions growth last year was a bit slower than the average growth rate of 2.5 percent over the past decade, and much of the dip was caused by an economic slowdown in China, which is the world’s single largest source of emissions. It may take an additional year or two to know if China has turned a corner toward slower emissions growth, or if the runaway pace of recent years will resume.

    In the United States, emissions rose 2.9 percent, after declining in recent years.

    The new numbers, reported by a tracking initiative called the Global Carbon Project and published in the journal Nature Geoscience, came on the eve of a United Nations summit meeting meant to harness fresh political ambition in tackling climate change. Scientists said the figures showed that vastly greater efforts would be needed to get long-term global warming within tolerable limits.

    “You can no longer have some countries go first and others come in later, because there is no more time,” said Glen P. Peters, a scientist at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, who helped compile the new numbers. “It needs to be all hands on deck now.”

--NYT (sorry, someone else will have to find the link)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12964
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #147 on: September 22, 2014, 11:04:20 PM »
wili,

Per the linked reference (& two associated attached images), both RCP 2.6 & 4.5, are highly dependent on the use of bioenergy and carbon capture storage (BECCS), which is highly uncertain technology for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.


Sabine Fuss, Josep G. Canadell, Glen P. Peters, Massimo Tavoni, Robbie M. Andrew, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Chris D. Jones, Florian Kraxner, Nebosja Nakicenovic, Corinne Le Quéré, Michael R. Raupach, Ayyoob Sharifi, Pete Smith & Yoshiki Yamagata, (2014), "Betting on negative emissions", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2392

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2392.html


Abstract: "Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage could be used to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. However, its credibility as a climate change mitigation option is unproven and its widespread deployment in climate stabilization scenarios might become a dangerous distraction."

Best,
ASLR
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2011
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #148 on: September 23, 2014, 01:10:15 AM »
"both RCP 2.6 & 4.5, are highly dependent on the use of bioenergy and carbon capture storage"

Thanks for that reminder.

Good graphs.

========================================

Now this from robertscribbler:

Worst Case Carbon Dioxide Emissions Increases Continue — Hitting 40 Billion Tons Per Year in 2013

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/worst-case-carbon-dioxide-emissions-increases-continue-hitting-40-billion-tons-per-year-in-2013/#comments
« Last Edit: September 23, 2014, 02:13:18 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2525
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Cycle
« Reply #149 on: September 23, 2014, 09:39:19 PM »