I will now reiterate the need to provide quotations, as some of the paths to the documents you have linked to require subscriptions to dig into the detail. Given that you must be a subscriber (as I'm sure you've read these references) I'm sure you'll be happy to oblige.
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Greetings PinheadOriginally Posted by PinHead
The point I was trying to make is I believe the biggest threat will come from an overpopulating world, rather than Climate change, by 2030.
To be more specific .. Australia is heading down the path of spending a substantial part of its GDP on renewable energy.
Most Australians think we are a wealthy country ... in the global scheme, per head we are .. at the COUNTRY level we are not.
As far as GDP goes .. once the mining boom ceases, we will be a relatively insignificant country again.
I apologize Ben if this is a bit broader than purely sea water Ph, however it is after all a VERY large issue with everything inextricably linked.
I believe that money is a finite source .. if spent on Australia reducing it's CO2 for not a really valid reason . other than making ourselves feel as though we are 'helping' .. consequently we will have less money spent on what I think by 2030 will be REALLY important:
1. Australia mitigating the effects of climate change ie. building Dams, infrastructure to reduce effects of sea-level rises, spending REAL dollars on research to see consequnces of CC, then ADAPTING to it.
2. Making sure that we don't spend our GDP trying to stick OUR finger in the dyke when the rest of the world is still causing the tsunamai.
The science of climate change is not very complex .. but very hard to PROVE so that everyone believes it as the changes at the moment are quite subtle and IMHO still within the realms of climate/weather variablity. For mere mortals, such as I, to try and discuss the science is futile ... as someone somewhere has a proving or disproving statement
I have been fortunate, since I retired 8 years ago to travel O/S quite a bit, much of it for fishing. In NO OTHER COUNTRY is climate change as front page news as it is in Australia. In fact in a 3 week trip to USA in August/September I did not see one reference to climate change/CO2 emissions etc. Similarly in France/Canada and Norway in 2010.
So in some respects this IS driven by the media in Australia.
Good point. By 2030 I feel there will be far more immediate concerns than CO2......
If i let rip that contains Co2, so what the hell happens if i let rip having a swim, will that help or hinder the worlds problems. And do fish fart ? heard a lot about cattle causing the imminent destruction of the world, hate to think about a zillion schooled pillies ripping one off, probably more dangerous than a rogue asteroid or a volcano.
Tangles KFC
The difference with the CO2/acidification issue is that it is a relatively easy calculation to do, as the dissolution rates of aragonite and carbonate saturation vs pH are easily calculated , easy to replicate in the lab, and there is a reasonable grasp on the volume of the oceans (i.e. their buffering capacity). The uncertainties relate to surface/subsurface mixing rates and how high the atmospheric CO2 concentration will go. So the models they are using are relatively simple things, based on chemistry, actual measurements of ocean pH and current understanding of ocean processes. In other words, good science.
I'm not sure I even touched on how the CO2 might get into the atmosphere in the first place. But that is actually irrelevant to this thread, because I am talking about the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and acidification. But I agree that overpopulation and food security will be far more imminent problems, and that all these issues are linked.
People should do their own research if they are interested in ocean acidification, but don't rely on the media, go to the scientific papers themselves and look at the DATA. I'm sorry if some people don't have access to some of the journals. But there is still plenty of peer reviewed stuff that is open access, more than enough to get a grasp on the subject.
....so with the increase of CO2 being linked to acidification, and with the understanding fish 'breathe' out CO2, can one correlate out of that then that maybe there are more fish in the sea than first thought as a reason for the increase?
Cheers,
Chris
Hi PhilIN, whilst not wanting to hijack the original intention of this thread, I think you'll find that for most of Europe, emmissions and alternative power were front page news well before global warming became a "fashionable" issue, they adressed it purely based on the air pollution issue. As for the rest of the world, well no-one really cared until recently.
As a side issue, when do you think mining might cease to be an income earner for this country?
Hard to find free for view copies of the key papers, but tracked some down. Best not to quote selectively from them, best for interested parties to read them in full. Media are very good at grabbing one quote and running with it to suit their headline needs, and I hate that. The upshot appears to be, there will be biological winners and losers, but no one is certain what will happen, as I said, its all one big experiment. Food chain disruption in some regions is a distinct possibility, larval fish may be able to switch to something else, if something else does not switch to them first . I have a few other papers if people want to PM me, can't post non open access (copyright of libraries etc.)
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outsta...feel2633.shtml
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18860.full.pdf , and its supporting info
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...06318105SI.pdf
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o....full.pdf+html
http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au...ation_2009.pdf
http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/l...cidificatn.pdf
There are heaps more looking at effects of pH on individual types of animals too, but that is not what we're really looking at here, its the source/sink relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ocean pH.
another free one - actual measurement data over 25 years from mid atlantic.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full.pdf+html
Excellent point Michael, excellent point.
Do fish fart? There is some funding to be had right there for the switched on future masters student.
Unfortunately your hypothosis may unravel early on as the majority of most farts (although I dont know you personally so your flatulance may differ from mine) is CH4 or methane. This is a reducing compound that would likely counter the effects of CO2 and increase pH. So perhaps if we all let rip some more when going for a dip we can solve ocean acidification.
Greetings Paddles
I think you would find the issues you talk about in the '70s were related to particulate matter and exhaust gases causing smog ie. SO2 etc.
When landing at Los Angeles airport in the '70s the end of the runway couldn't even be seem. The smog was a ghastly yellow colour, and spread like a mushroom.
In London it was mainly due to coal burning house heaters and brown coal burning power stations. In Europe the main problem there was acid rain/snow from the coal burning power stations and vehicles .. This caused a massive problem with forests ie The Ardenne and the Black forest. This is why France built so many nuclear reactors
This has been cleaned up by Catalytic converters, producing low sulphur diesel and a premium on black coal versus brown coal. There was NO issue with CO2 in those days.
On a side note ... Over the past 10 years I have visited WW1 graves in France & Belgium, tracking the boys from my old school killed in WW1. It is amazing to see the damage done to the gravestones of cemeteries close to autoroutes or close to a power station .. especially in Belgium.
The mining boom will always be an earner for Australia provided we have access to easily obtained ore/coal. However China is doing massive work in Africa to find alternate sources to our 'expensive' ore .. the biggest issue will be sovereign risk and so I give our 'boom' another 5 years, with a tapering over the next 10.
As to comments re different animal 'farts'
Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Horses and Camels .. the majority of 'food'animals are ruminants. Ruminants eat grass (cellulose) and ferment it with bacteria and yeat -like compounds. Fermentation produces gas (methane + Co2) and this is expelled .. in LARGE quantities.
This is why you NEVER give oral antibiotics to rumminants .. it kills all the bacteria and kills the animal.
Humans(omnivores) together with pigs and carnivores (dogs cats etc) break down the products using acids, etc. producing some gas, not a lot ... mostly 'breaking wind' is air swallowed everytime we swallow (food, saliva etc.)
Fish ... I have NO clue about. I would imagine they would NOT produce much in the way of gas otherwise there would be a bunch of 'floating' fish somewhere
sorry for the long-winded reply
yeah, that's what i was referring to phil, how in europe in the 70's and 80's you couldn't see the end of the street on a bad day, much the same as most SE Asian cities today.
i guess we'll wait and see what happens with the resource industry here, at least we can pull some coal out of the ground without getting shot at, which is a step ahead of most african countries. unless they are planning on using local labour to dig it out with a shovel and bucket, i can't see many expats being too keen on taking their expertise over there for long periods of time when you can earn some good coin and live in a nice safe first world country like australia. anyway, time will tell hey.
Just one slight correction PhilIN. Horses are NOT ruminants....they are monogastric with an enlarged Cecum (appendix) to aid in cellulose breakdown....but they still fart a lot. Just thought I would clarify that in case any kiddies were reading that are studying Ag Science.
Greg
SleepyGreg ... thanks for that. As a Veterinarian for 40 years I realised my error after I posted. Was too lazy to correct and hence was picked up on it. You are correct in their digestive sytem and they produce a lot less Methane/CO2 in their oesophageal and rectal 'emissions'.
Ben:
Question ... does the absorption of CO2 in sea water decrease as Ph slowly goes down?? It doesn't make sense that the absorption would be linear??
Over time will CO2 absorbing algae start to proliferate in the oceans as the Ph and temperature becomes more equable for their survival??
In terms of CO2 emitted by countries here's a link to the Guardian newspaper. Bear in mind this is a very left wing paper. Of interest is that Australia, according to that chart is 19 tonnes/head ... for many years the Greens have said we are 25tonnes/head and equal to USA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...untry-data-co2
This is one of the issues I have with this debate ... the varying claims made by the pro's and the anti's ... the science gets lost in all the 'noise'
Lost me on the first line.
"Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing at an accelerating
rate, primarily due to fossil fuel combustion and land use change."
I haven't read the rest, but I will.
Crap.
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote