Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
Interesting article about how CO2 can be removed from the Carbon Cycle by your local incinerator...
Carbon capture and storage during waste incineration removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Extract:
In order to achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, aiming to keep global warming to within 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, it will not be sufficient simply to reduce emissions. We must also actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere and establish a balance between emissions and removal.
Not all industries will be able to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The agricultural sector is a good example. But if we are to achieve total net zero emissions during the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release. With between 50 and 70 percent biological material currently being processed in energy recycling plants employing waste incineration, this will make a considerable difference to our carbon accounting.
What does 'climate-positive' mean?
Let's say that you throw away a set of IKEA's Ivar storage shelves and it ends up in an incineration plant. The shelves contain CO2 extracted from the air by the wood while the tree was living. So, in principle, if we incinerate this wood the entire cycle is carbon neutral. The same amount of the gas is released on incineration as was originally taken up. But if we capture and remove the CO2 during incineration, we also extract some CO2 from the cycle and make a positive contribution to the carbon budget.
Of course there will be hurdles to negotiate, but these are also created by humans. How we calculate and reward climate-positive approaches is currently unclear, not least within the EU. I have been in Brussels for some years now, and the debate continues to rage about how fast it is possible to store the CO2 locked in biological material. It is argued that this will take longer than the 30-year perspective leading up to 2050.
"During the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release."
That’s brilliant. All we need is a factory making woodchip furniture... and an incinerator next door, with a carbon capture system, to burn the same furniture. Of course there are hurdles to negotiate, but think about it... these two buildings alone can help reduce global heating. Imagine a scaled down version of the pair, in every village... making and then burning furniture...then capturing the carbon.Carbon capture and storage during waste incineration removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Extract:
In order to achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, aiming to keep global warming to within 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, it will not be sufficient simply to reduce emissions. We must also actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere and establish a balance between emissions and removal.
Not all industries will be able to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The agricultural sector is a good example. But if we are to achieve total net zero emissions during the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release. With between 50 and 70 percent biological material currently being processed in energy recycling plants employing waste incineration, this will make a considerable difference to our carbon accounting.
What does 'climate-positive' mean?
Let's say that you throw away a set of IKEA's Ivar storage shelves and it ends up in an incineration plant. The shelves contain CO2 extracted from the air by the wood while the tree was living. So, in principle, if we incinerate this wood the entire cycle is carbon neutral. The same amount of the gas is released on incineration as was originally taken up. But if we capture and remove the CO2 during incineration, we also extract some CO2 from the cycle and make a positive contribution to the carbon budget.
Of course there will be hurdles to negotiate, but these are also created by humans. How we calculate and reward climate-positive approaches is currently unclear, not least within the EU. I have been in Brussels for some years now, and the debate continues to rage about how fast it is possible to store the CO2 locked in biological material. It is argued that this will take longer than the 30-year perspective leading up to 2050.
"During the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release."
It’s a great idea.
While we’re on the Greenland theme:
Greenland's Retreating Glaciers Could Impact Local Ecology
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3035/greenlands-retr...
A new study of Greenland's shrinking ice sheet reveals that many of the island's glaciers are not only retreating, but are also undergoing other physical changes. Some of those changes are causing the rerouting of freshwater rivers beneath the glaciers, where it meets the bedrock. These rivers carry nutrients into the ocean, so this reconfiguring has the potential to impact the local ecology as well as the human communities that depend on it.
Advancing and Retreating
As glaciers flow toward the sea – albeit too slowly to be perceptible to the eye – they are replenished by new snowfall on the interior of the ice sheet that gets compacted into ice. Some glaciers extend past the coastline and can break off as icebergs. Due to rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures, the balance between glacier melting and replenishment, as well as iceberg calving, is changing. Over time, a glacier's front may naturally advance or retreat, but the new research shows that none of the 225 ocean-terminating glaciers surveyed has substantially advanced since 2000, while 200 have retreated.
Although this is in line with other Greenland findings, the new survey captures a trend that hasn't been apparent in previous work: As individual glaciers retreat, they are also changing in ways that are likely rerouting freshwater flows under the ice. For example, glaciers change in thickness not only as warmer air melts ice off their surfaces, but also as their flow speed changes in response to the ice front advancing or retreating.
Greenland's Retreating Glaciers Could Impact Local Ecology
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3035/greenlands-retr...
A new study of Greenland's shrinking ice sheet reveals that many of the island's glaciers are not only retreating, but are also undergoing other physical changes. Some of those changes are causing the rerouting of freshwater rivers beneath the glaciers, where it meets the bedrock. These rivers carry nutrients into the ocean, so this reconfiguring has the potential to impact the local ecology as well as the human communities that depend on it.
Advancing and Retreating
As glaciers flow toward the sea – albeit too slowly to be perceptible to the eye – they are replenished by new snowfall on the interior of the ice sheet that gets compacted into ice. Some glaciers extend past the coastline and can break off as icebergs. Due to rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures, the balance between glacier melting and replenishment, as well as iceberg calving, is changing. Over time, a glacier's front may naturally advance or retreat, but the new research shows that none of the 225 ocean-terminating glaciers surveyed has substantially advanced since 2000, while 200 have retreated.
Although this is in line with other Greenland findings, the new survey captures a trend that hasn't been apparent in previous work: As individual glaciers retreat, they are also changing in ways that are likely rerouting freshwater flows under the ice. For example, glaciers change in thickness not only as warmer air melts ice off their surfaces, but also as their flow speed changes in response to the ice front advancing or retreating.
Gadgetmac said:
While we’re on the Greenland theme:
Greenland's Retreating Glaciers Could Impact Local Ecology
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3035/greenlands-retr...
A new study of Greenland's shrinking ice sheet reveals that many of the island's glaciers are not only retreating, but are also undergoing other physical changes. Some of those changes are causing the rerouting of freshwater rivers beneath the glaciers, where it meets the bedrock. These rivers carry nutrients into the ocean, so this reconfiguring has the potential to impact the local ecology as well as the human communities that depend on it.
Advancing and Retreating
As glaciers flow toward the sea – albeit too slowly to be perceptible to the eye – they are replenished by new snowfall on the interior of the ice sheet that gets compacted into ice. Some glaciers extend past the coastline and can break off as icebergs. Due to rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures, the balance between glacier melting and replenishment, as well as iceberg calving, is changing. Over time, a glacier's front may naturally advance or retreat, but the new research shows that none of the 225 ocean-terminating glaciers surveyed has substantially advanced since 2000, while 200 have retreated.
Although this is in line with other Greenland findings, the new survey captures a trend that hasn't been apparent in previous work: As individual glaciers retreat, they are also changing in ways that are likely rerouting freshwater flows under the ice. For example, glaciers change in thickness not only as warmer air melts ice off their surfaces, but also as their flow speed changes in response to the ice front advancing or retreating.
Many moons ago on this forum, I showed ice core data from Greenland, where the temperature swings magnitude and rate of changed were multiples of what we were seeing now.Greenland's Retreating Glaciers Could Impact Local Ecology
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3035/greenlands-retr...
A new study of Greenland's shrinking ice sheet reveals that many of the island's glaciers are not only retreating, but are also undergoing other physical changes. Some of those changes are causing the rerouting of freshwater rivers beneath the glaciers, where it meets the bedrock. These rivers carry nutrients into the ocean, so this reconfiguring has the potential to impact the local ecology as well as the human communities that depend on it.
Advancing and Retreating
As glaciers flow toward the sea – albeit too slowly to be perceptible to the eye – they are replenished by new snowfall on the interior of the ice sheet that gets compacted into ice. Some glaciers extend past the coastline and can break off as icebergs. Due to rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures, the balance between glacier melting and replenishment, as well as iceberg calving, is changing. Over time, a glacier's front may naturally advance or retreat, but the new research shows that none of the 225 ocean-terminating glaciers surveyed has substantially advanced since 2000, while 200 have retreated.
Although this is in line with other Greenland findings, the new survey captures a trend that hasn't been apparent in previous work: As individual glaciers retreat, they are also changing in ways that are likely rerouting freshwater flows under the ice. For example, glaciers change in thickness not only as warmer air melts ice off their surfaces, but also as their flow speed changes in response to the ice front advancing or retreating.
I was told that I shouldn’t look at one region, in that case Greenland and the Antarctic, and draw conclusions for global variations from that.
So I’d suggest you do the same.
Kawasicki said:
Many moons ago on this forum, I showed ice core data from Greenland, where the temperature swings magnitude and rate of changed were multiples of what we were seeing now.
I was told that I shouldn’t look at one region, in that case Greenland and the Antarctic, and draw conclusions for global variations from that.
So I’d suggest you do the same.
Er...who’s drawing conclusions about global variations from that article?I was told that I shouldn’t look at one region, in that case Greenland and the Antarctic, and draw conclusions for global variations from that.
So I’d suggest you do the same.
I’d also make a suggestion to you...take a minute to re-read the post thats been made to see whats actually been posted as opposed to what you THINK has been posted. The article is about the possible changes to the ecology of Greenland by the melting of the Ice Sheet. I’ve made no mention of anything else.
Seriously, give yourself a time-out first. It’ll save a lot of blushes.
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Many moons ago on this forum, I showed ice core data from Greenland, where the temperature swings magnitude and rate of changed were multiples of what we were seeing now.
I was told that I shouldn’t look at one region, in that case Greenland and the Antarctic, and draw conclusions for global variations from that.
So I’d suggest you do the same.
Er...who’s drawing conclusions about global variations from that article?I was told that I shouldn’t look at one region, in that case Greenland and the Antarctic, and draw conclusions for global variations from that.
So I’d suggest you do the same.
I’d also make a suggestion to you...take a minute to re-read the post thats been made to see whats actually been posted as opposed to what you THINK has been posted. The article is about the possible changes to the ecology of Greenland by the melting of the Ice Sheet. I’ve made no mention of anything else.
Seriously, give yourself a time-out first. It’ll save a lot of blushes.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Many moons ago on this forum, I showed ice core data from Greenland, where the temperature swings magnitude and rate of changed were multiples of what we were seeing now.
I was told that I shouldn’t look at one region, in that case Greenland and the Antarctic, and draw conclusions for global variations from that.
So I’d suggest you do the same.
Er...who’s drawing conclusions about global variations from that article?I was told that I shouldn’t look at one region, in that case Greenland and the Antarctic, and draw conclusions for global variations from that.
So I’d suggest you do the same.
I’d also make a suggestion to you...take a minute to re-read the post thats been made to see whats actually been posted as opposed to what you THINK has been posted. The article is about the possible changes to the ecology of Greenland by the melting of the Ice Sheet. I’ve made no mention of anything else.
Seriously, give yourself a time-out first. It’ll save a lot of blushes.
This is the Climate Change (Science) thread. Scientific studies and research on Melting ice sheets are entirely appropriate in here.
I get that you don’t like Science being posted in here so you feel you have to comment on EVERY single paper posted by me but you’re getting desperate once again using that line of argument.
Anyway, considering you were the one who brought up one single glacier out of hundreds on Greenland just a few pages back thats really quite funny.
Kawasicki said:
Greenland is a region that happens to experience large, fast swings in temperature, long before the industrial revolution and it seems like that has continued after the industrial revolution.
Which is nice. Climate change is real, it’s old too.
Of course it’s real. I’d just pick your battles more carefully. Nothing I’ve posted today has been about MMGW. Which is nice. Climate change is real, it’s old too.
Great news, from the Shepherd Gazette.
“New observational study demonstrates that increasing air dryness does not reduce photosynthesis in certain very wet regions of the Amazon rainforest, contradicting Earth system models that show the opposite“
https://shepherdgazette.com/some-amazon-rainforest...
Link to paper.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/47/eabb7...
Of course the authors of the paper have stated “our findings are certainly not an excuse to not reduce our carbon emissions.”
“New observational study demonstrates that increasing air dryness does not reduce photosynthesis in certain very wet regions of the Amazon rainforest, contradicting Earth system models that show the opposite“
https://shepherdgazette.com/some-amazon-rainforest...
Link to paper.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/47/eabb7...
Of course the authors of the paper have stated “our findings are certainly not an excuse to not reduce our carbon emissions.”
Kawasicki said:
Of course the authors of the paper have stated “our findings are certainly not an excuse to not reduce our carbon emissions.”
Of course it's not an excuse to not reduce reduce carbon emissions. They state why n the rest of the paragraph that you've (selectively) quoted...Gentine and Green note, however, that this sensitivity was determined using only existing data and, if dryness levels were to increase to levels that are not currently being observed, this could in fact change. Indeed, the researchers found a tipping point for the most severe dryness stress episodes where the forest could not maintain its level of photosynthesis. So, say Gentine and Green, “our findings are certainly not an excuse to not reduce our carbon emissions.”
However, it is of course good news that that Amazon is showing this resilience to current air dryness/water stress levels. Let's hope that with rising temperatures it can continue for a little while longer at least.
Of course it's very heartening to see you linking to papers written by pro AGW scientists on the science thread. Rob and PRTVR will be along shortly to accuse you of treason
Gadgetmac said:
Of course it's very heartening to see you linking to papers written by pro AGW scientists on the science thread.
You seem quite polarised in your opinion on AGW.At what level of estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity does one go from AGW denier to pro AGW?
I'd like to be able to categorise scientists as pro or against AGW, based on that number.
Is there an upper limit where a scientist changes from pro AGW to AGW alarmist?
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Of course it's very heartening to see you linking to papers written by pro AGW scientists on the science thread.
You seem quite polarised in your opinion on AGW.At what level of estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity does one go from AGW denier to pro AGW?
I'd like to be able to categorise scientists as pro or against AGW, based on that number.
Is there an upper limit where a scientist changes from pro AGW to AGW alarmist?
When any climate scientist says "our findings are certainly not an excuse to not reduce our carbon emissions" you can very safely assume that they're pretty much in the pro AGW camp.
Kawasicki said:
Is there an upper limit where a scientist changes from pro AGW to AGW alarmist?
The deniers will have to answer that one. They're the ones who believe thousands of scientists around the world are lying about their findings rather than merely relaying what the science says.Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Of course it's very heartening to see you linking to papers written by pro AGW scientists on the science thread.
You seem quite polarised in your opinion on AGW.At what level of estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity does one go from AGW denier to pro AGW?
I'd like to be able to categorise scientists as pro or against AGW, based on that number.
Is there an upper limit where a scientist changes from pro AGW to AGW alarmist?
When any climate scientist says "our findings are certainly not an excuse to not reduce our carbon emissions" you can very safely assume that they're pretty much in the pro AGW camp.
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Is there an upper limit where a scientist changes from pro AGW to AGW alarmist?
The deniers will have to answer that one. They're the ones who believe thousands of scientists around the world are lying about their findings rather than merely relaying what the science says.Let's pick a number then. ECS under 2C means denier, ECS over 4C means believer. Those between 2 and 4 need to pick a side.
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Is there an upper limit where a scientist changes from pro AGW to AGW alarmist?
The deniers will have to answer that one. They're the ones who believe thousands of scientists around the world are lying about their findings rather than merely relaying what the science says.Btw, calling people who accept science "believers" is idiotic.
Kawasicki said:
Let's pick a number then. ECS under 2C means denier, ECS over 4C means believer. Those between 2 and 4 need to pick a side.
That doesn't make any sense. The estimated ECS according to the IPCC - i.e. the accepted science - is 1.5 - 4.5C.
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Is there an upper limit where a scientist changes from pro AGW to AGW alarmist?
The deniers will have to answer that one. They're the ones who believe thousands of scientists around the world are lying about their findings rather than merely relaying what the science says.Btw, calling people who accept science "believers" is idiotic.
Kawasicki said:
Let's pick a number then. ECS under 2C means denier, ECS over 4C means believer. Those between 2 and 4 need to pick a side.
That doesn't make any sense. The estimated ECS according to the IPCC - i.e. the accepted science - is 1.5 - 4.5C.
We need to get the numbers and the labels defined.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff