Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaveMatrix
Legend 2: Plants Emission
Plants emit more carbon dioxide than humans, so why aren't we blaming them?
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
It's true that the trees, plants, and animals (collectively called the biosphere) emit about ten times more CO2 every year than humans. This happens through respiration when biomass is converted into carbon dioxide and water, releasing the energy that powers life in the process. However, all that CO2 is taken up by plants when they create biomass during photosynthesis, leaving no net change in the atmosphere.
There tends to be a strong seasonal signal to this process because a lot of respiration happens during the fall when leaves fall off trees and decay, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. But again, all that CO2 is taken back up by forests when the leaves re-grow in the spring, again leaving no net change in the atmosphere.
What is really relevant to climate change is the net emissions of CO2 (sources minus sinks) over an extended period. In equilibrium, all natural sources of CO2 will be balanced by natural sinks that remove CO2, meaning they do not increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion are not completely balanced by a sink and so represent a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere that increases greenhouse gas concentration and warms the planet.
|
Last time I checked, plants and trees took in C02 and used the carbon and H20 to make cellulose and the solid parts of the tree/plant. They put out the extra 02 they didn't use. In the fall, the process might stop, but the tree/plant shouldn't put off more C02 (unless you burn it). The solid carbon in plant biomass would fall to the ground and eventually compost into the soil. I'm not sure what gasses are released during that phase.
But the reason it probably spikes in the fall would be the fact that trees/plants don't grow as much and don’t need as much C02 during that part of the year. If that is correct, you should see C02 levels continue to increase through the winter (factoring in how much C02 is produced during each time period).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaveMatrix
Legend 8: Warming is Good
Climate change is happening but it will be good for us.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
In general, societies around the world have adapted to the present climate - growers know when to plant their crops, houses are built to be cool where it is hot and warm where it is cold. Because of the effort and resources devoted over time to this adaptation, changes to the climate will require adjustments to behavior and infrastructure that are likely to be very costly. (As a small example, over 180 villages in coastal Alaska will have to be relocated because of increased coastal erosion since the retreat of the sea ice. Each move will cost approximately $180 million.) Any benefits from climate change (and some, such as a longer growing season in Russia and Canada, do exist) are likely to be localized and insignificant compared to the more numerous negative impacts.
An important prediction of almost all climate models is that global warming will result in increasing weather variability. Such a change would be very likely to have only negative consequences because large swings in weather are damaging to crop production and human health, and make adaptation much more difficult.
Another very significant aspect of climate change, sea level rise, will only have negative effects because of the inundation of coastal land. A recent World Bank study estimated that a minimum of 57 million people would be affected by a sea level rise of 1 meter.
Crucial to this question is how fast changes to the climate occur. If changes were happening very slowly and gradually, it could be that adaptation would be less expensive and that positive effects would partly offset negative ones. However, changes over the next century are likely to happen very rapidly, making it difficult and expensive to take advantage of changes in a positive way. The recently released report from Working Group 2 of the IPCC details the best scientific estimates of the expected impacts from climate change, which include disruptions to ecosystems and the hydrological cycle, damage from increasingly severe extreme weather events, changes to patterns of infectious disease, and lower crop yields.
|
I worry about what might happen if water levels go up 5 meters (1 meter is livable, though wouldn't be ideal). Once snow and ice start melting, it generally happens pretty fast. At least in Michigan and Ohio in the spring time, I'm not sure what happens in northern Canada, Greenland, the north pole(wouldn't necessary cause height increase, but would warm water everywhere else) and Antarctica.
But, I would not be affected by the raising sea at all. If anything, my home price would go up because of the millions of people who need to move.
I hope they don't try to save coastal cities Netherlands style and charge taxpayers the cost of it. It would be a mess and throw the economy for a loop for all of the people to lose their homes and businesses, but might cause my home price to go up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaveMatrix
Legend 9: Warming Not Fair
Worrying about climate change is unfair to the developing world.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
This statement ignores the fact that the primary emphasis of the current climate change movement is on the reduction of emissions in developed countries. Because they are wealthier, and because their per capita emissions are so large, the onus is on developed countries to find new, carbon-free technologies that can be transferred to developing countries once they are well established.
The crux of the climate problem lies in the huge per-capita carbon footprint of the Western lifestyle, not in the provision of energy to the poorest people in developing nations. Were enough electricity and cooking fuel for basic human needs provided to everyone on the planet, global CO2 emissions would only increase by 3%. See the calculations by Robert Socolow here.
In fact, not worrying about climate change would be unfair to the developing world. Developing countries, which are the most vulnerable, stand to suffer the worst impacts from climate change and yet are least responsible for the problem because their emissions are so low. Lowering carbon emissions is crucial for ensuring that the imbalance between first and third world nations is not made worse as a result of climate change.
Many people in the developing world do not have access to electricity because importing traditional fossil fuels is expensive. Environmental and development NGOs are working to build cheaper renewable energy systems which have the win-win effect of increasing the availability of electricity and putting countries on a clean energy development pathway. An example is the Climate Institute's own Global Sustainable Energy Islands Initiative and the work that the Government of Iceland has been doing in promoting geothermal energy production from the Rift Valley in East Africa.
http://climate.weather.com/science/u...nds/index.html
|
The people in developing countries could move inland much easier than a Tampa, Honolulu, Sydney, Santa Monica, San Diego, Cancun or any other number of developed cities right at sea level currently.
Developing countries basically use our cheapest and easiest ways of doing things anyway. With computers they might be able to use recent technology (5 years old), but they aren't using solar panels or an other expensive and advanced ways of producing power. The could use more water turbines, wind turbines and ocean turbines to generate power without emissions.
And I don't care all that much about what is causing global warming. Or even if it is happening at all. But we need a energy policy that benefits renewable energy efficient technologies and makes the air cleaner.