Ocean acidifcation .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Unless each and every one of 7.5 billion people drive vehicles every day, your comparison is flawed.

And guess from where that coal and oil's carbon was originally extracted?

Yes, it was originally created by plants over millions of years. It is currently underground not in the environment. Unlike the CO2, you breathe out which just came from a plant. We are taking millions of years of sequestered carbon and dumping it into the air, so of course the CO2 is rising.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by ptards

Let's step back a few decades, when Acid rain was the big issue here in the Eastern US, due to burning coal, so the US cut back the usage of coal & stepped up scrubbing.



Now we have oceanic acidification, who's going to step up to the plate and tell China & India to stop burning coal? Sam Walton, Ali Baba? Jeff Bezos? Consumers?

Perhaps a small step in the right direction would be to stop selling coal to them[emoji3]

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Yes, it was originally created by plants over millions of years. It is currently underground not in the environment. Unlike the CO2, you breathe out which just came from a plant. We are taking millions of years of sequestered carbon and dumping it into the air, so of course the CO2 is rising.

And this is a problem why exactly?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... Would it disturb you to know that termites release between two to ten times more CO2 to the environment (depending on what source you read) than humans emit? And this is inclusive of that produced by our technology like coal fired power stations and 2020 plated V8 muscle cars.

It would shock me, because it's just plain WRONG.

The only pollutant of concern from termite activity is methane (CH4); although termite activity also results in the production of carbon dioxide (CO2). As Lake-Effect explained (post #274), these CO2 emissions are part of the regular carbon cycle, and as such should not be included in a greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
Estimates of the contribution to the global budget of CH4, from termites, vary widely, from negligible up to 15 percent (due to the difficulty in estimating the total global biomass of termites).

In a study* published in PNAS, a team of researchers led by Dr. Philipp Nauer, found that around half of all methane emitted from termites is broken down by bacteria within the termite mounds and underlying soil before it enters the atmosphere.
“... Three independent methods demonstrated that 20 to 80% of termite-produced CH4 was consumed before reaching the atmosphere ...”
“Termite mounds mitigate half of termite methane emissions” ~ by Philipp A. Nauer et al.
* ➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13306

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It would shock me, because it's just plain WRONG.

The only pollutant of concern from termite activity is methane (CH4); although termite activity also results in the production of carbon dioxide (CO2). As Lake-Effect explained (post #274), these CO2 emissions are part of the regular carbon cycle, and as such should not be included in a greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
Estimates of the contribution to the global budget of CH4, from termites, vary widely, from negligible up to 15 percent (due to the difficulty in estimating the total global biomass of termites).

In a study* published in PNAS, a team of researchers led by Dr. Philipp Nauer, found that around half of all methane emitted from termites is broken down by bacteria within the termite mounds and underlying soil before it enters the atmosphere.
“... Three independent methods demonstrated that 20 to 80% of termite-produced CH4 was consumed before reaching the atmosphere ...”
“Termite mounds mitigate half of termite methane emissions” ~ by Philipp A. Nauer et al.
* ➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13306

So where do you reckon all the carbon from the cellulose they exclusively feed on goes? Last time I looked at a termite mound with any interest, it was made of mud. Not carbon.



Surely it's not vanishing into thin air?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Surely the antarctic should be melting as well?

Sure, think about stirring Larssen A, B and C into southern ocean. What you think it means?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So where do you reckon all the carbon from the cellulose they exclusively feed on goes? ...

Yes, it's RETURNING to the same place it RECENTLY came from.

Termites are recycling wood and other plant matter. That is necessary to ensure space and nutrients are available for the next generation of plants. The effect on the CO2 budget, between plants absorbing CO2 from the air and termites returning it to the air, is zero.

Humans on the other hand are digging up and burning CO2 accumulated as carbon over millions of years, and returning it to the atmosphere without a balancing process of removal.

➥ https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/bgc-syst...erson_1997.pdf

➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...29139317300318

➥ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/88a...5e2c620e31.pdf

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Yes, it's RETURNING to the same place it RECENTLY came from.

Termites are recycling wood and other plant matter. That is necessary to ensure space and nutrients are available for the next generation of plants. The effect on the CO2 budget, between plants absorbing CO2 from the air and termites returning it to the air, is zero.

Humans on the other hand are digging up and burning CO2 accumulated as carbon over millions of years, and returning it to the atmosphere without a balancing process of removal.

➥ https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/bgc-syst...erson_1997.pdf

➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...29139317300318

➥ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/88a...5e2c620e31.pdf

What makes you so confident that sinks and sources are in sync? It's effectively two competing systems, not a symbiotic one.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Out of what orifice did you dig that?

from satellite measurements that are commonly available .

The real question is why haven't you availed yourself of it .

Btw just so you know the data is on a 2 hour lag time .
https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...19.312,-10.621

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Radiative forcing according to the IPCC. Human activity overwhelms natural forcing.

cute chart that is missing a major item
It shows tsi but it is missing total solar forcings. Which is at least as strong as the listed " total " anthropogenic " forcings .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Once an exhaust gas enters the environment it becomes part of the natural cycle. CO2 builds up in the atmosphere because the sinks can't keep up with the sources. How much land area has been bulldozed and paved over since 1850?

A very important contribution, indeed. The 'A' in AGW isn't just the burning of fossil fuels. Restoring sinks is part of the fix.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What makes you so confident that sinks and sources are in sync? It's effectively two competing systems, not a symbiotic one.

Because all the sources and sinks we know about have been more or less in balance, as expressed in pre-industrial natural records. If something 'natural' has gone out of whack so badly in the last 200 years that could increase CO2 at a rate anywhere near that of fossil fuels, you'd kind of think we'd pick up on that, yes? Unless you subscribe to Exile's Natural Forces That Cannot Be Measured.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

[1] What makes you so confident that sinks and sources are in sync?
[2] It's effectively two competing systems, not a symbiotic one.

I don't understand the question [1], nor the statement [2].
Please elucidate.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Surely the antarctic should be melting as well?

It is winter in the Southern hemisphere.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

True, but adding billions of people to the planet may be....

If you think it important to add billions of people to the equation, then you also need to subtract the billions of bison, wildebeest, fish, etc, that humans have killed and displaced. Then add all the cows and pigs and chickens that humans keep.

My understanding is that all those factors are taken into account.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Marc1

And this is a problem why exactly?

Th sequestering of that CO2 resulted in a Goldilocks world where homo sapiens evolved and the their food crops were domesticated.

The last time CO2 levels were at the current level both global temperatures and the oceans were significantly higher.