tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post1722576007973314433..comments2023-10-31T05:09:58.639-04:00Comments on maribo: Where does all the carbon go?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-43893172255675833352007-11-19T14:44:00.000-05:002007-11-19T14:44:00.000-05:00hey nice job but what happens to the fossil fuel a...hey nice job but what happens to the fossil fuel after it is released in the atmoshere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-19739669489606577942007-06-24T23:54:00.000-04:002007-06-24T23:54:00.000-04:00I thought readers might be interested in my recent...I thought readers might be interested in my recently completed report on "Forests, Carbon & Global Warming" available here:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/2by9kt<BR/>Size 2 MB - File type MS Word<BR/><BR/>The report explains how climate change is likely to affect forests as well as how forest conservation and restoration may help mitigate climate change. The report also helps debunk some of the flawed arguments used by logging advocates.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to contact me if you have any comments/questions.<BR/><BR/>Doug Heiken<BR/>dh@oregonwild.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-40089582133202634362007-06-22T11:45:00.000-04:002007-06-22T11:45:00.000-04:00Thanks for the response.I can assure you I wasn't ...Thanks for the response.<BR/><BR/>I can assure you I wasn't "baiting" you and I realize simple calculations can be deceptive. But they can also sometimes be useful for giving ballpark estimates -- especially when one is trying to determine whether some solution is within the realm of possibility or whether it is essentially "pie in the sky." <BR/><BR/>Even my rather crude (and admittedly naive) estimates on this are already enough to make me doubt the feasibility of soaking up <I>all</I> the emissions with trees -- though it might make some difference and I think a global planting initiative is well worth pursuing for its other benefits alone.<BR/><BR/>But I wanted to get the opinion of someone who knows more about this to see if my thoughts were on the right track. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Some of the people who suggest that we can plant our way out of the current emissions problem undoubtedly have ulterior motives (oppose mitigation), but not all. Some are honest, smart and thoughtful people: eg Freeman Dyson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-41611111120587172952007-06-22T11:00:00.000-04:002007-06-22T11:00:00.000-04:00Two papers in this week's science magazine throw s...Two papers in this week's science magazine throw some more light on the terrestrial and ocean carbon sink. They are summarized here http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/316/5832/1708Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-33703037810869901552007-06-21T23:59:00.000-04:002007-06-21T23:59:00.000-04:00I've never done back-of-the-envelope calculations ...I've never done back-of-the-envelope calculations like that for carbon sink potential, because though it may appear so at first, the problem is just not that simple, and any answer we derive that way would be a bit reckless. Perhaps someone else is willing to take the bait? <BR/><BR/>Safe to say modern-day vegetation can't easily become the storeroom for all the world's fossil carbon. For one, once a forest reaches maturity, the exchange of carbon with the atmosphere becomes basically balanced. No net drawdown. So, yep, you'd need to continually be replanting new forests... next question is then, where? Obviously C-fixation by vegetation varies around the planet -- not a lot of big thick tall trees in far north.Simon Donnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844831377442275615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-69371064896260027332007-06-21T14:10:00.000-04:002007-06-21T14:10:00.000-04:00I realize there are going to be fluctuations in th...I realize there are going to be fluctuations in the amount, but i am looking for a ballpark estimate.<BR/><BR/>Is it safe to assume that plants are absorbing somewhere around 1/4 the total yearly emissions?<BR/><BR/>I have read that roughly half the CO2 emitted by humans is reabsorbed, which leaves another half that would need to be absorbed if we were to make the emissions problem "go way".<BR/><BR/>So, am i correct in assuming that we would have to increase and maintain vegetation at roughly 3X its current level to absorb all the yearly CO2 emissions from human activities? (ie, to absorb the current 25% plus the remaining 50% that is not currently being absorbed)<BR/><BR/>How reasonable do you think it is to assume that we can do something on that scale -- ie, "plant our way out of" the current emissions problem?<BR/><BR/>And, given that plants eventually return their CO2 back to the biosphere, is it also safe to assume that one would have to maintain a large scale planting program into perpetuity to offset the inevitable future release?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-27687055642042569222007-06-21T12:45:00.000-04:002007-06-21T12:45:00.000-04:00Depends how you do the math:total land uptake / to...Depends how you do the math:<BR/>total land uptake / total emissions (fossil fuels, cement, deforestation) = 28% during the 80s and 90s, according to the IPCC. But this changes every year, as has been alluded to in the previous comments.Simon Donnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844831377442275615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-45685863263422313872007-06-21T12:21:00.000-04:002007-06-21T12:21:00.000-04:00Perhaps you can tell me What fraction of the yearl...Perhaps you can tell me <BR/><BR/>What fraction of the yearly human CO2 emissions is absorbed by plants?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-27721756057590701762007-06-21T12:08:00.000-04:002007-06-21T12:08:00.000-04:00I was sloppy with my statement "recent large jump ...I was sloppy with my statement "recent large jump in the yearly CO2 increment"<BR/><BR/>I should have made it clear I was talking about an average yearly increase for several years.<BR/><BR/>Your more detailed analysis shows the same thing that one finds by comparing the average yearly increase for the decade of the 1990's to the average of the yearly increase over the past 5 years or so.<BR/><BR/>Namely, that over recent years, the yearly increase averages nearly 1/3 higher than the average increase during the nineties, a difference which can't be accounted for by the fairly small (percent wise) increase in emissions in recent times (about 2% -- from a growth rate of 1% pre-2001 to 3% per year therafter)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-77437175092278312392007-06-20T13:57:00.000-04:002007-06-20T13:57:00.000-04:00The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 is much more va...The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 is much more variable than simply a "recent large jump in the yearly CO2 increment ... (from about 1.5ppm/yr before 2002, to about 2ppm thereafter)."<BR/><BR/>I've put a graph of CO2 growth rate in the UPDATE to <A HREF="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/latest-trends-in-co2/" REL="nofollow">my post</A> (it's near the end of the post).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-71676759793737810392007-06-20T10:40:00.000-04:002007-06-20T10:40:00.000-04:00True -- a higher fraction of fossil fuel emissions...True -- a higher fraction of fossil fuel emissions remained in the atmosphere in the first half of this decade (57%) than in the 1990s (50%), though it was 60% in the 1980s (in IPCC WG1, Table 7.1). All I'm saying above is that we can't definitively attribute a relative decrease in the sink to climate-change induced drought in the tropics.Simon Donnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844831377442275615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-59832366521240153462007-06-20T10:28:00.000-04:002007-06-20T10:28:00.000-04:00"there's no evidence it has happened yet."...unles..."there's no evidence it has happened yet."<BR/><BR/>...unless you consider the recent large jump in the yearly CO2 increment as evidence (from about 1.5ppm/yr before 2002, to about 2ppm thereafter).<BR/><BR/>This is clearly not due to greater yearly emissions. While these have gone up lately (by about 3% per year), not by anywhere near enough to account for the jump from 1.5 to 2ppm per year.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this increase might be due to warmer oceans absorbing less CO2, or perhaps a change in wind patterns over oceans that leads to less CO2 evaporation from the ocean water -- but something unusual does seem to be going on. (unusual compared to previous decades of CO2 increases)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-15313234363305068152007-06-20T09:32:00.000-04:002007-06-20T09:32:00.000-04:00True, that's exactly the point, climate change-ind...True, that's exactly the point, climate change-induced tropical droughts and related fires could start to reduce the carbon sink, but there's no evidence it has happened yet.<BR/><BR/>As for respiration... that's in the next post!Simon Donnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844831377442275615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25163458.post-86276638279589205862007-06-20T05:56:00.000-04:002007-06-20T05:56:00.000-04:00Hi,good post, only I would add up some more info o...Hi,<BR/><BR/>good post, only I would add up some more info on the ii) possible feedback effects - a recent study using NOAA AVHHR satellites found no global increase in burned area -from 1980 to 2000. However, it found significant increase in some parts of the world. Still, the recent years experienced redord braking or unusual wild fire activity in many parts of the world (USA, Canada, Russia, Australia...) - see the graphs in my post - http://ac.blog.sme.sk/c/98483/Analyza-lesnych-poziarov-existuje-globalny-trend.html - see the graphs and links inside.<BR/><BR/>Further, after a wildfire, the ecosystem is "source" of CO2 for several years, due to increased soil respiration...<BR/><BR/>AlexUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05701445076620211588noreply@blogger.com