Brexit Hit To Uk Trade Less Than...
News0 min ago
Seas acting as carbon sinks? Is this nature proving it can take care of itself?
I read a story on BBC teletext during the week in the science section that said a submersible vehicle had plunged to and explored the greatest ever depths of the seas, I think it was to a depth of 10-14 kilometres. Apparently it has been discovered that these parts of the seas are acting as carbon sinks.
This has got me wondering whether this is nature's way of regulating the amount of carbon dioxide that is going into the atmosphere which has risen along with human development. If this is the case then could it be used as proof that the earth is able to regulate its climate naturally without any need for human intervention ie green policies?
This has got me wondering whether this is nature's way of regulating the amount of carbon dioxide that is going into the atmosphere which has risen along with human development. If this is the case then could it be used as proof that the earth is able to regulate its climate naturally without any need for human intervention ie green policies?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nature doesn't do things by intent, but the world would not have reached it's present fortunate situation had it not naturally developed advantageous feedback systems that help self correct the situations.
That said the lack of intent means that nature can not care what species survive, if the feedback cycle takes us out, then that's what happens. Folk want green policies to lower the risk of the world surviving without us.
That said the lack of intent means that nature can not care what species survive, if the feedback cycle takes us out, then that's what happens. Folk want green policies to lower the risk of the world surviving without us.
Saw this website today. http://www.wired.com/...ke-vostok-antarctica/ I wonder could these sorts of areas have elements which could counteract global warming, in that when these ice caps melt they would balance out global warming effects and then refreeze?
I believe that most of the carbon on earth is tied up in carbonate rock such as chalk and limestone, most of this is locked out of the carbon cycle in the short term.
Carbon dioxide dissolved in the sea decreases the pH in a complex mixture of ions that play an important part in the ability of marine creatures to grow skeletons and regulate oxygen uptake. Most biological activity takes place in the upper layers of the oceans, which is where our industrial carbon dioxide dissolves. We cannot be complacent about the oceans being sinks as no-one yet has an accurate understanding of the harmful effects of too much carbon dioxide on marine creatures.
Carbon dioxide dissolved in the sea decreases the pH in a complex mixture of ions that play an important part in the ability of marine creatures to grow skeletons and regulate oxygen uptake. Most biological activity takes place in the upper layers of the oceans, which is where our industrial carbon dioxide dissolves. We cannot be complacent about the oceans being sinks as no-one yet has an accurate understanding of the harmful effects of too much carbon dioxide on marine creatures.
Essentially, our seas have a certain capacity to absorb C02, most of which is taken up with naturally-occuring C02. This happens with or without us.
However, we create enough man-made C02 to take the total amount made over the capacity of the sinks to absorb (only about 40% of ours is being absorbed) therefore there is a net deficit and it goes into the atmosphere where it contributes to climate change. We can tell that this is happening because natural C02 and man-made C02 have different carbon isotopes, meaning we can measure which is responsible for the change.
However, we create enough man-made C02 to take the total amount made over the capacity of the sinks to absorb (only about 40% of ours is being absorbed) therefore there is a net deficit and it goes into the atmosphere where it contributes to climate change. We can tell that this is happening because natural C02 and man-made C02 have different carbon isotopes, meaning we can measure which is responsible for the change.
"...only about 40% of ours is being absorbed"
Of course, waldo, the seas know intuitively which CO2 molecules are "ours" and which originate from elsewhere. They deal with the others whilst ignoring ours.
I've heard a load of tripe about global warming and its alter ego "climate change". Nobody has yet managed to convince me that variations in the 4% that mankind has influence over (this figure is not disputed and of which the UK is responsible for about one forties at most) can have such a disproportionate effect on the climate. Meanwhile we seem to be able to muddle along without the other 96% causing us too much trouble.
In the meantime I sit typing this by the light of my “energy efficient eco-friendly” lightbulb, waiting for it to warm up to give me sufficient light to see by, by which time the headache it gives me will have developed nicely. Of course in a few years I will only be able to turn it on at all when the wind is blowing (not too strong, not too hard) as we shall have shut down the “dirty” power stations and replaced them with windmills. Hopefully by then the corruption in the “carbon trading” market will have been tackled so we’ll all be saved. Until then I’ll make do with popping down to my local department store. At least I’ll be warm there because they have, in the middle of winter, a 20 foot door wide open and a 15Kw heating “curtain” warming the street up nicely.
Don’t make me laugh any more as my sides are splitting.
Of course, waldo, the seas know intuitively which CO2 molecules are "ours" and which originate from elsewhere. They deal with the others whilst ignoring ours.
I've heard a load of tripe about global warming and its alter ego "climate change". Nobody has yet managed to convince me that variations in the 4% that mankind has influence over (this figure is not disputed and of which the UK is responsible for about one forties at most) can have such a disproportionate effect on the climate. Meanwhile we seem to be able to muddle along without the other 96% causing us too much trouble.
In the meantime I sit typing this by the light of my “energy efficient eco-friendly” lightbulb, waiting for it to warm up to give me sufficient light to see by, by which time the headache it gives me will have developed nicely. Of course in a few years I will only be able to turn it on at all when the wind is blowing (not too strong, not too hard) as we shall have shut down the “dirty” power stations and replaced them with windmills. Hopefully by then the corruption in the “carbon trading” market will have been tackled so we’ll all be saved. Until then I’ll make do with popping down to my local department store. At least I’ll be warm there because they have, in the middle of winter, a 20 foot door wide open and a 15Kw heating “curtain” warming the street up nicely.
Don’t make me laugh any more as my sides are splitting.
As I said, Waldo, nobody has yet explained to me how 4% of the total amount of a substance can cause so much trouble, whereas the remaining 96% causes little or no bother at all. And neither have you
A 1% variation in the 96% will be nineteen times as large as the same percentage variation in the 4%. The mechanisms that absorb CO2 are, according to the hypothesis, so discriminatory that they can cope with the former but not the latter. Yeah, right..
Anyway, enough from me. I'm off to John Lewis's to stand in their doorway for a warm up.
A 1% variation in the 96% will be nineteen times as large as the same percentage variation in the 4%. The mechanisms that absorb CO2 are, according to the hypothesis, so discriminatory that they can cope with the former but not the latter. Yeah, right..
Anyway, enough from me. I'm off to John Lewis's to stand in their doorway for a warm up.
Yes, OG, I’ve heard that old chestnut (once or twice). Of course the analogy is specious because the earth’s absorption mechanisms control the level of CO2 whereas your cup has no method of controlling the liquid you put into it.
Better to imagine you have a bath with two taps delivering water into it, one delivering nineteen times as much as the other. On occasions, this larger tap delivers twenty or twenty one times as much as the other, but your bath has still shown no signs of overflowing because your overflow can cope with varying inputs. Would you worry about the smaller tap and consider reducing its flow by a few percent, or even turning it off at great inconvenience to yourself? I doubt it.
“Natural” carbon emissions have varied enormously over the aeons – far more than the small variations we are witnessing recently -and the earth has coped. But no doubt “that’s different”.
Better to imagine you have a bath with two taps delivering water into it, one delivering nineteen times as much as the other. On occasions, this larger tap delivers twenty or twenty one times as much as the other, but your bath has still shown no signs of overflowing because your overflow can cope with varying inputs. Would you worry about the smaller tap and consider reducing its flow by a few percent, or even turning it off at great inconvenience to yourself? I doubt it.
“Natural” carbon emissions have varied enormously over the aeons – far more than the small variations we are witnessing recently -and the earth has coped. But no doubt “that’s different”.
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.