Sentences with phrase «consider ocean carbon»

Not exact matches

The U.S. EPA is considering stiffening standards for the ocean acidification caused by rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere

The list is long and familiar: too much carbon dioxide warming the atmosphere and acidifying the ocean; too much land being cleared, leading to deforestation and desertification; overfishing causing crashes in one stock after another; and habitat destruction reducing biodiversity so drastically that some consider a sixth mass extinction to be under way.

Understanding how carbon flows between land, air and water is key to predicting how much greenhouse gas emissions the earth, atmosphere and ocean can tolerate over a given time period to keep global warming and climate change at thresholds considered tolerable.

The «land - ocean aquatic continuum», has not previously been considered an important carbon sink.

Not considering the change in net uptake of carbon by the ocean, you can put the following numbers on that (based on Ramanathan and Feng, 2009):

«We have to consider there are two sides of the coin: On the one hand, the uptake of carbon dioxide moderates climate change but, on the other hand, it affects life in the ocean — with consequences for economy and society.»

But emissions have two parts: One is the pollutants that are harmful to people, animals, oceans, etcetera; the other is CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions that are generally considered to be the cause of global warming, which is generally considered to be fact, and that CO2 is produced in direct proportion to how much fossil fuel is burned in cars, as well as buildings, locomotives, planes, and ships.

Proposed explanations for the discrepancy include ocean — atmosphere coupling that is too weak in models, insufficient energy cascades from smaller to larger spatial and temporal scales, or that global climate models do not consider slow climate feedbacks related to the carbon cycle or interactions between ice sheets and climate.

This is followed by the authors» conclusion that while simple models (which consider only carbon chemistry) predict that the ocean will take up 70 - 80 % of the carbon dioxide we emit, the long - equilibrium will quite possibly be considerably higher than those models would suggest — given the changes to ocean circulation.

In my model, that is to say neglecting surprises but just considering the atmosphere / ocean / CaCO3 system, if we stopped releasing CO2 today and closed the terrestrial biosphere to either releases or uptake of carbon, just closed the system, CO2 would relax down to some value higher than today.

Fossil fuels have many alternative uses that do not involve dumping carbon pollution into the atmosphere, such as petrochemicals, and should be used far more wisely if indeed we consider them to be precious — so that we save the climate, oceans and air pollution and don't scrape the barrel dry.

The audience for whom this piece is intended consists of people who know some chemistry and are uncertain about how to consider the often made claim by deniers that the oceans contain so much dissolved carbon that human production is inconsequential.

Considering this human production leads to the conclusion that there is necessarily a net increase in dissolved carbon dioxide (see Henry's Law above) and the calculations yield in this case a decreasing average pH in the oceans.

The significance of these restraints should be considered by the deniers when they assert that the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans is so large that exchanges between the ocean and the atmosphere dwarf human production.

This paper considers the practicalities, opportunities and threats associated with one of the earliest proposed carbon - removal techniques: large - scale ocean fertilization, achieved by adding iron or other nutrients to surface waters.

Transparent jellyfish - like creatures known as a salps, considered by many a low member in the ocean food web, may be more important to the fate of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the ocean than previously thought.

As these SRM techniques are also largely unproven, require a mostly peaceful world to be deployed in, require the bending of judiciary systems, may backfire climatologically and do «nothing» [considering ocean temperature feedbacks they actually do do something] to abate ocean acidification — the simple notion that it is cheap [again, policy thinking] makes geoengineering so dangerous, possibly undermining cooperation behind the world's mitigation attempts, under the UNFCCC, the hard route that we need to go anyway * [as CDR geoengineering lacks the potential to get carbon concentrations back to safe levels, also for marine life — and isn't much cheaper / is costlier anyway].

The world's climate is way too complex... with way too many significant global and regional variables (e.g., solar, volcanic and geologic activity, variations in the strength and path of the jet stream and major ocean currents, the seasons created by the tilt of the earth, and the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, which by the way is many times more effective at holding heat near the surface of the earth than is carbon dioxide, a non-toxic, trace gas that all plant life must have to survive, and that produce the oxygen that WE need to survive) to consider for any so - called climate model to generate a reliable and reproducible predictive model.

All original human CO2 is gone in about 60 years, while still about 10 % of the original peak in CO2 (100 % caused by humans) is measurable after 160 years... The measured response of the ocean - atmosphere carbon cycle in 1988 at 350 ppmv (60 ppmv above steady state) gives an e-fold decay rate of ~ 55 years: http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm» ANSWER: What is to be considered is the simple problem (the equation at the top of this reply) constrained by the four monthly time series (CO2)(t) and its delta13C (t), f anthropic (t) and its delta13C (t).

Long considered to be the planet's ultimate safety valve for excess carbon dioxide - drawing down close to 25 % of all anthropogenic emissions - the oceans may not prove as effective at storing the greenhouse gas as they did during the last ice age,

Coupled models added a new level of realism by considering the carbon cycle, in addition to atmosphere and ocean.

It is interesting to me that the remediation approaches currently being considered for climate change can be classified into two categories: 1) Geoengineering — approaches ranging from fertilizing the oceans to detonation of many nukes 2) Econo - engineering (a term I just coined)-- which looks at policy / fiscal changes ranging from cap and trade, carbon taxes, etc. to forcing everybody to live like the Amish.

«Ocean pH tells us about the amount of carbon absorbed by ancient seawater, but we can get even more information by also considering changes in the isotopes of carbon, as these provide an indication of its source,» says Andy Ridgwell, co-author of the study.

I insist that consideration of relative contributions of carbon fluxes without considering the error margins is an utter nonsense, especially if the difference between two big numbers (uptake and intake from oceans) is a prime concern.