Musing's about carbon uptake

[longview]

We often hear that a grown tree only picks up about 50 lbs of carbon per year,
but if you consider biomass, it almost has to be more than that.
When a 6 lb gallon of gasoline is burned it produces nearly 20 lbs of CO2,
but the reverse is also true, to create a pound of biomass, requires about 3 pounds of CO2.
A low end hay field can produce about 4000 lbs of dry hay per planting, or represent a CO2 uptake of 12,000 lbs of CO2 per acre.
I think an acre of pine trees at 435 trees per acre, will create about 24,000 lbs of dry mass, or pick up about 72,000 lbs of CO2 per year.
I wonder how bamboo compares?
Bamboo is very fast growing
I wonder if we could find a way to frame houses with bamboo instead of pine?
Wood in a framed building is effectively sequestered carbon.

 

[lemmiwinx]

I remember in the early 80s a private company tried to establish how much CO2 could be sequestered in naturally grown hemp but their calculations got so skewed that the experiment had to be abandoned.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I remember in the early 80s a private company tried to establish how much CO2 could be sequestered in naturally grown hemp but their calculations got so skewed that the experiment had to be abandoned.

They must have smoked too much of it to remain focused.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Bamboo has been making its presence known more and more as a replacement for more traditional hardwoods. Just because it grows fast, doesn't mean it absorbs more CO2. That would need to be a separate study.

As for traditional evergreens, I have read before that they do slow down their intake of CO2 dramatically as they mature. This is another reason to increase them as a cash crop. Not only are trees renewable, but these evergreens do absorb lots of CO2 as they are growing. If we cut them down, and build things with them, the captured CO2 is sequestered, and we plant more and continue on.

We can manage the forests, reduce wildfires, reduce lumber prices, and take a bit out of the CO2 increase.

 

[PirateMk1]

Bamboo has been making its presence known more and more as a replacement for more traditional hardwoods. Just because it grows fast, doesn't mean it absorbs more CO2. That would need to be a separate study.

As for traditional evergreens, I have read before that they do slow down their intake of CO2 dramatically as they mature. This is another reason to increase them as a cash crop. Not only are trees renewable, but these evergreens do absorb lots of CO2 as they are growing. If we cut them down, and build things with them, the captured CO2 is sequestered, and we plant more and continue on.

We can manage the forests, reduce wildfires, reduce lumber prices, and take a bit out of the CO2 increase.

I dont understand the obsesion with carbon sequestration. More CO2 is better for plant growth. I have a hydroponics system and increase the CO2 contration in the air by about 25% to increase production and promote more growth. Its very effective.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I dont understand the obsesion with carbon sequestration. More CO2 is better for plant growth. I have a hydroponics system and increase the CO2 contration in the air by about 25% to increase production and promote more growth. Its very effective.

Oh, I'm with you there. But we still need to be able to limit it. I would be cautious once we et to about 600 ppm.

Bottom line is, we still need to be able to stop the climbing levels at some point.

 

[Deuce]

I dont understand the obsesion with carbon sequestration. More CO2 is better for plant growth. I have a hydroponics system and increase the CO2 contration in the air by about 25% to increase production and promote more growth. Its very effective.

Really? You've never heard of the greenhouse effect?

 

[PirateMk1]

Really? You've never heard of the greenhouse effect?

Its been way hotter on this planet, the Jurassic era of the planets temps were much higher as was CO2 and O2 concentrations and atmospheric pressure.

Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Deuce]

Its been way hotter on this planet, the Jurassic era of the planets temps were much higher as was CO2 and O2 concentrations and atmospheric pressure.

Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Asteroids have also hit the planet before. So, naturally, you wouldn't want to take action if an asteroid were coming. They're natural! Like cobra venom and ebola.

Actually, better yet, let's deliberately cause an asteroid impact. Because asteroids have hit Earth before. There's valuable metals in those things, man.

 

[PirateMk1]

Asteroids have also hit the planet before. So, naturally, you wouldn't want to take action if an asteroid were coming. They're natural! Like cobra venom and ebola.

Actually, better yet, let's deliberately cause an asteroid impact. Because asteroids have hit Earth before. There's valuable metals in those things, man.

The planet will get along fine. Its the humans living on it that are going to have the problem, I certainly dont give a **** about em. If a asteroid hit it would be doing the universe and the planet a favor.

 

[Deuce]

The planet will get along fine. Its the humans living on it that are going to have the problem, I certainly dont give a **** about em. If a asteroid hit it would be doing the universe and the planet a favor.

Nihilism doesn't make you incapable of understanding that not everyone shares the idea, which means you're just being dishonest.

 

[PirateMk1]

Nihilism doesn't make you incapable of understanding that not everyone shares the idea, which means you're just being dishonest.

Obviously climate changes. It has always changed. The issue is simply a way for politicos to scare idiots into going along with thier hair brained scemes.

 

[Deuce]

Obviously climate changes. It has always changed. The issue is simply a way for politicos to scare idiots into going along with thier hair brained scemes.

You're still just pretending to not understand the discussion. You're well aware that our impact on climate has the potential to cause humanity serious harm, and you're well aware that some people have a desire to mitigate that harm, even if you personally pretend not to care.

Whatever your reason, it's boring and played out. Congratulations, you're the one millionth person to troll threads about climate.

 

[longview]

You're still just pretending to not understand the discussion. You're well aware that our impact on climate has the potential to cause humanity serious harm, and you're well aware that some people have a desire to mitigate that harm, even if you personally pretend not to care.

Whatever your reason, it's boring and played out. Congratulations, you're the one millionth person to troll threads about climate.

Our potential impact on the climate is great, our impact as a result of CO2 emission, perhaps not so much.
It still come back to, how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, and how much CO2 we actually emit.
Even within the concept of how much warming we can expect from a doubling of the CO2 level, depends
of how that CO2 is emitted, in one large pulse, or gradually over 180 years.

 

[Deuce]

Our potential impact on the climate is great, our impact as a result of CO2 emission, perhaps not so much.
It still come back to, how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, and how much CO2 we actually emit.
Even within the concept of how much warming we can expect from a doubling of the CO2 level, depends
of how that CO2 is emitted, in one large pulse, or gradually over 180 years.

That has nothing to do with what PirateMk1 is trolling about but if you want to further discuss your hilarious sense of superiority we can do that.

Do you, longview, think climate scientists don't realize CO2 is released gradually?

 

[longview]

That has nothing to do with what PirateMk1 is trolling about but if you want to further discuss your hilarious sense of superiority we can do that.

Do you, longview, think climate scientists don't realize CO2 is released gradually?

I know they realize that CO2 increases gradually, but question the ECS standard which doubles the CO2 level abruptly
in simulation. TCR is a much closer representation to actual CO2 increases, yet the IPCC seems to still present ECS as a
predictor of future events.
IPCC AR6 SPM

Improved knowledge of climate processes, paleoclimate evidence and the response of the climate system to
increasing radiative forcing gives a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C, with a narrower
range compared to AR5.

Why do you think they would choose to report a sensitivity of an event that can never actually happen? (An abrupt doubling of CO2)

 

[Deuce]

I know they realize that CO2 increases gradually, but question the ECS standard which doubles the CO2 level abruptly
in simulation. TCR is a much closer representation to actual CO2 increases, yet the IPCC seems to still present ECS as a
predictor of future events.
IPCC AR6 SPM

Those scenarios you keep pretending to understand are not actually based on an abrupt doubling of CO2
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

Why do you think they would choose to report a sensitivity of an event that can never actually happen? (An abrupt doubling of CO2)

It's a useful tool for scientists. Nobody cares whether or not you personally understand the math.

 

[longview]

Those scenarios you keep pretending to understand are not actually based on an abrupt doubling of CO2
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

It's a useful tool for scientists. Nobody cares whether or not you personally understand the math.

You cited the IPCC SPM (As I already had) but can you quote the section that says ECS is not based on an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level?
Also scenarios are not related directly to ECS but are estimates of future CO2 growth.
The future expected CO2 level is then combined with ECS to arrive at an erroneous estimate of future temperature.

 

[Deuce]

You cited the IPCC SPM (As I already had) but can you quote the section that says ECS is not based on an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level?

Your reading comprehension is terrible. That isn't what I said.

Also scenarios are not related directly to ECS but are estimates of future CO2 growth.
The future expected CO2 level is then combined with ECS to arrive at an erroneous estimate of future temperature.

No, it's not erroneous, you just don't understand how the math is done. Their calculations do not assume CO2 is abruptly doubled. No matter how many times you desperately try to pretend this is the case, it's not how this works and nobody cares about your dumb straw man.

 

[longview]

Your reading comprehension is terrible. That isn't what I said.


No, it's not erroneous, you just don't understand how the math is done. Their calculations do not assume CO2 is abruptly doubled. No matter how many times you desperately try to pretend this is the case, it's not how this works and nobody cares about your dumb straw man.

Well let's see,
I said,
"I know they realize that CO2 increases gradually, but question the ECS standard which doubles the CO2 level abruptly
in simulation."
And you replied,
"Those scenarios you keep pretending to understand are not actually based on an abrupt doubling of CO2"
I never said the scenarios were based on an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, but ECS sure is.
And you did not quote the section of the IPCC SPM that supported what you think!

 

[Deuce]

Well let's see,
I said,
"I know they realize that CO2 increases gradually, but question the ECS standard which doubles the CO2 level abruptly
in simulation."
And you replied,
"Those scenarios you keep pretending to understand are not actually based on an abrupt doubling of CO2"
I never said the scenarios were based on an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, but ECS sure is.
And you did not quote the section of the IPCC SPM that supported what you think!

Why do you keep bringing up a "scenario that can't happen" when you admit that their scenarios are not predicated on an instant doubling?

 

[longview]

Why do you keep bringing up a "scenario that can't happen" when you admit that their scenarios are not predicated on an instant doubling?

They are two unique and different things.
The RCP/SSP scenarios are predictions of energy imbalance in year 2100, and also predictions of the corresponding
CO2 level.
So RCP/SSP8.5 for example, predicts an energy imbalance of 8.5 Watts per meter squared (W m-2_ )by year 2100, a CO2 level of 1370 ppm.
This is very different than ECS which is an attempt at determining our climate's sensitivity to added CO2,
by abruptly doubling the CO2 level in the simulation, and then watching how the simulated climate responds.
IPCC Ar6 WG1

ECS is defined as the response to a sustained doubling of CO2.

Sustained meaning that the level is doubled abruptly, and then does not go down.
The clue is that no time frame for the doubling is mentioned.

Since TCR is defined as the temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling under an idealized 1% yr –1 CO2 increase

Note, that for TCR they do define a period of time over which CO2 increases, 1% per year.
In any case the way the IPCC come up with a future temperature, is they look at the
CO2 level at that time based on a given scenario, and then calculate the temperature based on the ECS sensitivity.
The way they write the SSP, as 5 to 8.5, is really a range of imbalance of 5 to 8.5 W m-2 or a CO2 range of ~715 ppm to 1370 ppm.
As to a nearly impossible scenario SSP 8.5 at 1370 ppm of CO2 by 2100, is nearly impossible,
because it would require CO2 increases of 12.2 ppm per year averaged for the next 78 years.
Note, the increases for the last 20 years have averaged 2.74 ppm per year.

 

[Deuce]

They are two unique and different things.
The RCP/SSP scenarios are predictions of energy imbalance in year 2100, and also predictions of the corresponding
CO2 level.
So RCP/SSP8.5 for example, predicts an energy imbalance of 8.5 Watts per meter squared (W m-2_ )by year 2100, a CO2 level of 1370 ppm.
This is very different than ECS which is an attempt at determining our climate's sensitivity to added CO2,
by abruptly doubling the CO2 level in the simulation, and then watching how the simulated climate responds.
IPCC Ar6 WG1

Sustained meaning that the level is doubled abruptly, and then does not go down.
The clue is that no time frame for the doubling is mentioned.

Note, that for TCR they do define a period of time over which CO2 increases, 1% per year.
In any case the way the IPCC come up with a future temperature, is they look at the
CO2 level at that time based on a given scenario, and then calculate the temperature based on the ECS sensitivity.
The way they write the SSP, as 5 to 8.5, is really a range of imbalance of 5 to 8.5 W m-2 or a CO2 range of ~715 ppm to 1370 ppm.
As to a nearly impossible scenario SSP 8.5 at 1370 ppm of CO2 by 2100, is nearly impossible,
because it would require CO2 increases of 12.2 ppm per year averaged for the next 78 years.
Note, the increases for the last 20 years have averaged 2.74 ppm per year.
View attachment 67390005

Link to the scenario you think involves doubling CO2 abruptly

 

[longview]

Link to the scenario you think involves doubling CO2 abruptly

You do not understand, the scenarios are not the ECS models, they are independent of climate sensitivity. They apply the sensitivity found from the simulations to the scenarios!