Heating from carbon dioxide will increase five-fold over next millennia
January 29, 2009
(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at the University of Liverpool have found that heating from carbon dioxide will increase five-fold over the next millennia.
Scientists studied the impact that current carbon emissions have on the delicate balance between air and sea carbon exchange. They found that the ocean’s ability to store excessive amounts of carbon dioxide over thousands of years will affect the long-term heating of the planet.
The ocean acts as an enormous carbon sink which naturally absorbs any extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. Its ability to store more carbon dioxide than both the atmosphere and land provides long-term storage for the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities.
Scientists at Liverpool, however, have found that if all conventional coal, oil and gas carbon reserves are exhausted, the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will begin to alter the ocean’s natural chemistry and hinder its ability to absorb and exchange the gas.
Professor Ric Williams, from the University’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, explains: “It is accepted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to an increase in heating around the globe. It was, however, unclear as to how the ocean’s ability to store carbon could affect the future overall heating of the earth.
“The excessive amount of carbon in the atmosphere will make the oceans more acidic and hamper the ability of the oceans to absorb further carbon from the atmosphere. The extra carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the overall heating of our planet, making sea levels rise and exacerbating the melting of the Arctic ice caps.
“To prevent a situation like this from happening scientists are working to develop carbon-capture techniques, which aim to remove excess carbon from identifiable sites, such as the atmosphere around fossil fuel plants, and permanently store them away.”
The paper is published in Nature Geosciences.
Provided by University of Liverpool
13 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
First it is stated:
"They found that the ocean's ability to store excessive amounts of carbon dioxide over thousands of years will affect the long-term heating of the planet."
Then at the end of the article it is stated:
"It was, however, unclear as to how the ocean's ability to store carbon could affect the future overall heating of the earth."
The net effect of these two statements is total nullification of the premise presented by the article.
Please don't be influenced by doublethink.
After the nullification of the thesis presented by the article's conclusion, we are presented with a hyperbolic solution that requires the spending of huge sums of money and unprecedented social sacrifice.
Next, the takeaway.
And last, the punchline.
I can't decide if this is a sales formula, or a joke formula.
It must be a joke. It sure isn't science.
It's BOTH! Though the joke is a bad one.
That never was a controlled experiment. It was merely an experiment to show the ability of CO2 to trap heat. But, a bottle of pure CO2 is not the same thing as a bottle filled with air with levels of CO2 at atmospheric levels with a slight increase. There is no calibration of heat sources to ensure that the lamps have the same radiative output, that the glass containers do not have differing anomalies, and that levels of CO2 in the bottles are measured accurately.
And yet, so-called climatologists seem to think that earth is like that bottle in the school-kid science experiment. What on earth were the oceans doing when earth's CO2 levels were in the 1000s ppm long before mankind walked the earth???
It is evident from the fossil record that life was more abundant during those times than now. Over 95% of all species that once existed when the oceans and atmosphere were filled with CO2 at levels so much higher levels in ppm than now are extinct, or so the estimates seem to show. But, when the atmosphere contained 1000s ppm of CO2 that was not so.
If it was not a bad thing way back when, why do these so-called climatologists seem to think it would be a bad thing now???
Too much bad and peurile "science" for my liking these days...
Not that actual data or science has ever had any effect on the GW deniers, but its interesting information.
This tho is a horrible article. I have to agree that it looks like someone was seriously hungover and had a 10 minute deadline and didn't read the actual article they were basing the article on. It truly is a joke. But this joke does NOT invalid a ton of good science based with solid data.
That is how we got the original (now thoroughly discredited) hockey-stick global-warming graph that the Goreians gave the world, and so forth...
The biggest thing for these so-called scientists is that they must ignore historical events where the temperatures of the climate across the Arctic were at least 4°C to 5°C warmer, and probably more, than today.
To see a summary of the data and historical records discussed concerning this MWP, see H. H. Lamb, "Climate, History and the Modern World," pp. 157-159.
In my opinion, and this is opinion only, it is more likely that there was an immense release of methane clathrates which would naturally decay into CO2, CO, water, and hydrogen gas and be very difficult to detect in proxy records due to how quickly it breaks down in the presence of UV at atmospheric levels.
Think about how fast the seafloor turns over due to subduction and thermal venting and it would make sense that a periodic and recurring die off cycle occurs due to this mechanic.
I'll have to hunt that article down again and make reference to it.
But, I can see how the mechanic you outline could cause a mass-extinction event or two.