Sentences with phrase «excess co2»

When there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere, water near the ocean surface becomes acidic too quickly for this normal process to take place.

Even if we assume that an unknown source that is producing CO2 it does not follow that the CO2 levels atmosphere would increase as much as they had if humans were not pumping the excess CO2 into the air since the human produced CO2 must go somewhere.

Andrew Sullivan pulled together some thoughtful posts on geoengineering as a tactic for addressing excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

This means the possibility always exists that an idea that comes up in a discussion like this might turn out to be the «magic bullet» that could cheaply and effectively solve the immediate «problem» of excess CO2.

There is no reason to believe that excess CO2 will remain in the atmosphere very long.

Unless the land use changes are permanently away from vegetation, as in paving a large area, the net carbon emissions are zero since whatever gets removed will grow back and thus consume the excess CO2.

Over the past two centuries, forest conversion and forest management have contributed a substantial fraction of the excess CO2 observed in the atmosphere.

I do value the views of those who have done decades of work on strategies, approaches and plans for rapidly ending GHG emissions and drawing down excess CO2, over the views of anonymous blog commenters who obviously have given little real thought or study to the issues involved.

So far the campaign to prove excess CO2's necessity is falling flat.

As a smaller fraction of the excess CO2 goes into the oceans, a larger fraction may remain in the atmosphere, and the chemical changes in seawater that can affect organisms will continue to grow in lockstep with the relentless increases in the excess CO2 in the overlying atmosphere caused by human activities.

As emissions slow in the future, the oceans will continue to absorb excess CO2 emitted in the past that is still in the air, and this excess will spread into ever - deeper layers of the ocean.

Dickson noted that although the oceans presently take up about one - fourth of the excess CO2 human activities put into the air, that fraction was significantly larger at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

And if we don't take urgent action NOW to quickly end our GHG emissions and draw down the already dangerous anthropogenic excess CO2, then AGW is likely to have horrific effects on the entire biosphere that will go far beyond merely ending human civilization.

As RoyFOMR says @ 64 «I hope you haven't allowed yourself to take your eye off the thimble and swallow the guff about «excess CO2 ″ and «Upsetting the natural balance» from ScepticalScience et al!»

The fact that climate will change sensitively based on some subtle disturbance suggests that a large disturbance such as an excess CO2 impulse can also cause the climate to change.

If the liquid water subsequently freezes, the excess CO2 will appear as very tiny trapped bubbles, far smaller than the size of the ice grains resulting from crushing the ice sample during the analysis process.

A new way of globally working together could actually significantly increase the total energy obtained from fossil fuel burning by most rapidly shutting down the highest impacting activities per unit of final user obtained energy (including all impacts, not just the production of excess CO2).

Carbon removal solutions work by cleaning up excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

Kevin C @ 33, pumping deep ocean water to the surface will in fact draw down excess CO2, but only by limiting the extent to which the ocean will further draw down CO2 once we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

If one agrees with Salby's conjecture that the excess CO2 is naturally occurring, then you can make no claims about aCO2 as a GHG apart from dismissing the theory completely.

The problem then is what we do with the excess CO2.

It takes into account that excess CO2 above 280 ppmv continues to increase exponentially, which you seem to be ignoring but which is important if the figure of 25 years is to remain at all constant from one decade to the next.)

Some of that excess CO2 is soaked up by the ocean and biosphere, while the rest of it accumulates in the atmosphere.

If we add anthropogenic CO2 in this scenario, it now has less of a pCO2 gradient for flow into the ocean, and so the concentration of excess CO2 should decline by even less than half, leaving an even larger fraction in the atmosphere.

An example is the proposal to get rid of excess CO2 by pumping it into the ground, called carbon sequestration.

The body has two handy ways of regulating pH when its buffers aren't enough to do the job: by shuffling off extra H + ions into the urine, or by removing more CO2 via the lungs (one of the reasons that you breathe more rapidly when you exercise is to remove excess CO2 from your blood).

The consequences of this increase range from ocean acidification — excess CO2 lowers of the pH of the water, dissolving the shells of many animals and threatening the stability of entire marine ecosystems — to trapping heat in the atmosphere, leading to climate change.

We humans are now pumping around 40 trillion liters a day of excess CO2 into the environment.

AGW is a hypothesis which says that we are currently experiencing unusual warming of the Earth, that it is caused by excess CO2 produced by man, acting through a feedback process, and that it will continue to increase to create high temperatures which will be of net disadvantage to humankind.

And CO2 has a huge inertia and associated latency because of its long adjustment time, and even if the anthropogenic CO2 forcing was stopped it would only slowly decrease due to the diffusive lag on the excess CO2 left in the atmosphere.

Extraction of the excess CO2 from the air in this case would be very expensive and perhaps implausible, and warming of the ocean and resulting climate impacts would be practically irreversible.

The next thing will be global freezing caused by excess co2 ice.

If we stopped generating CO2 emissions today, the rate at which the oceans would return their excess CO2 into the atmosphere is governed by the overturning rate of the deep ocean, which as I said is roughly 500-1000 years.

Bleaching and excess CO2 uptake may be only two of many factors.

For example, if the adjustment time was equal to the residence time, and this value was 5 years, then we would be seeing only 1/4 the amount of excess CO2 than what we are measuring, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Obvious question: Is the excess CO2 problem caused by humans or the fact that plankton population is diminished (I understand that the plankton population may also be affected by human behavior).

The correct measure is actually one of considering adjustment time, which is defined as the excess CO2 which has not diffused into deep sequestering sites.

Some might but we still have this huge excess CO2 from fossil fuel emissions.

Salby is probably right in that the excess CO2 doesn't have fossil fuel markers but then again he doesn't understand the difference between adjustment time and residence time of CO2.

«This is the outcome we get if we continue down this path of burning a lot of fossil fuel and using the atmosphere as a dumping ground for excess CO2 when we make energy,» Ault said.

Reducing excess CO2 is done by plants and shell - forming animals.

However, due to the dynamic nature of the CO2 cycle all the excess CO2 can not be attributed, molecule by molecule, as a product of fossil fuel burning.

El Niño has caused drought in tropical regions, which reduced the capacity of forests, oceans, and vegetation to absorb excess CO2.

Right after that you can challenge them on the fact that if they believe that excess CO2 is a threat, why do they support IWT's and not a program of tree planting with it's inheirent environmental superiority?

The Bomb Spike is just that «experiment» and the measurements of the excess C14 decay curve give us an 8 year half life for the atmosphere's recovery time from excess CO2.

In addition to creating excess CO2 the burning of fossil fuels creates other damaging impacts.

Australian Grape growing regions have had late flowering (indicating lower temperatures (but many had rainfall during flowering which caused mildew) and yet here we have Prof Snow claiming climate change is the demon and excess CO2.

For a linear model if you, say, increase all three CO2 isotope variants by 50 %, you could then measure what you call the «excess decay time» (what I meant by «residence time» as opposed to «exchange time») by watching the excess CO2 concentrations decay with time back to (or near to) the original amount.

The ocean and the biosphere are natural sinks for excess CO2.

Climate Emergency Darebin will pursue the creation of a zero emissions economy that also engages in drawing excess CO2 out of the atmosphere on order to contribute to the emergency speed restoration of a cool safe climate.