I enjoy your articles, but can I make a plea? Whenever someone says CO2 = global warming, it tends to spark the sterile debate of "no it is'nt - yes it is". We might get somewhere if we stay focussed.
The problem is potrayed as "emissions". Trouble is that the CO2 levels are rising at the same rate as emissions. To stop things where they are (I gather the present figure is 395ppm) we would have to end all use of fossil fuels instantly. The death and destruction which would result is far worse than any global warming scenario. If - as in my reading of the CO2 absorption spectrum - the gas is the main cause, including its effect of increasing atmospheric water vapour, then for some years the warming effect will continue to accelerate, even if we peg the level.
To view the problem as it is, an imbalance in the global ecology instead of merely an emissions problem, opens up the options. Considering how to rebalance the producer - consumer activity involves looking at farming, forestry and the big one - ocean photosythesis. That also means that we do not need to impose taxes or live in poverty. I prefer to avoid opinions in favour of figures, I'm a tree grower among other things. To provide the whole world with the energy equivalent of 115 million barrels of oil per day (2030 estimate)growing fast growing coppice species, based on the yield per hectare in Southern England, would require 1.5% of the earth's surface. Then we would have carbon neutral fuel.
Technically, there is no problem regarding restoring the ecological balance and we do not need to cut our living standards. We do need to stop pointless quibbles and use our intelligence - which so far seems to be the missing element.

Making control inputs to a system that is poorly understood is folly.

Aaron

Emissions are the problem, and co2 is the most dangerous one. And we should restore the ecological balance,if it is not to late to save our own species.There is so little fuel left,why don't we think about other energy sources.A person can't say that carbon emissions are not the problem,and than,in the next sentence devise a plan to be carbon neutral.Kipp

Hi Terry,

So that is the crux of the debate. Do we invest in sensible technical solutions as President Bush has suggested - or panic, raise taxes, scare children and turn control over to the United Nations?

Unfortunately the momentum is towards panic, because maintaining panic is the basis for many people's livelihood these days. Fear and panic is also what the Democrats are counting on for winning the election.

So more iron means lighter shells, possibly meaning less carbon sequestered?
So much for throwing iron into the oceans as previously suggested!
But,I thought we had to act? I mean why wait? Action is needed because, “We have to do something!"
An utterly understandable gut reaction, but completely sophomoric because we could cause more harm than we ever imagined. I mean look what we did with CO2 when we went off the farm and industrialized!
Here is a suggestion:
Do nothing until we know what the heck we are doing before we set another wheel in motion that could cause real harm!
That sounds like a pretty good idea.
Remember, "First do no harm!"

Brett - FYI one more thing to consider regarding carbon in the oceans ....

Carbonate compensation depth (CCD) is a level in the oceans below which the rate of supply of calcium carbonate (calcite and aragonite) equals the rate of dissolution, such that no calcium carbonate is preserved.

Calcium carbonate is essentially insoluble in sea surface waters today, shells of dead calcareous plankton sinking to deeper waters are practically unaltered until reaching the lysocline where the solubility increases dramatically, by the time the CCD is reached all calcium carbonate has dissolved.

Calcareous plankton and sediment particles can be found in the water column above CCD and, if the sea bed is above the CCD, bottom sediments can consist of calcareous sediments called calcareous ooze which is essentially a type of limestone or chalk. If the sea bed is below the CCD tiny shells of CaCO3 will dissolve before reaching this level so there will be no carbonate sediment.

The exact depth of the CCD depends on the solubility of calcium carbonate which is determined by temperature, pressure and the chemical composition of the water - in particular the amount of dissolved CO2 in the water. Calcium carbonate is more soluble at lower temperatures and at higher pressures. It is also more soluble if the amount of dissolved CO2 is higher because some of this combines with water molecules to produce a weak acid.

At the present time the CCD in the Pacific Ocean is about 4 200 - 4 500 m except beneath the equatorial upwelling zone, where the CCD is about 5,000 m. In the temperate and tropical Atlantic Ocean the CCD is at approximately 5,000 m. In the Indian Ocean it is intermediate between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The CCD is relatively shallow in high latitudes.

The difference between CCD depths in different oceans today can largely be explained by variation in dissolved CO2 content. This is related to the patterns of circulation of deep ocean waters like the North Atlantic Deep Water because decay of organisms in the water column causes a build up of dissolved CO2 in water which has been at depth longer.

In the geological past the depth of the CCD has shown significant variation. For example, in the Cretaceous through to the Eocene the CCD was much shallower globally. In the late Eocene the development of Antarctic glaciers resulted in colder deep sea temperatures leading to a deeper CCD.

Terry your post is rather simplistic ... does your 1.5 % of the earth's surface include the damp bits, the polar bits, the desert bits and the bit with my house on it?
How about the bits where my future dinner is grazing or growing!! What of the paved over bits.
Technically there is a huge problem and the costs will be enormous.

Funny how the research takes us to study one of the smallest critters on the planet and somehow using them to save us from ourselves.

GO DIATOMS!

Did you know that if you use diatomaceous earth on your garden, it can kill unwanted bugs without the use of pesticides?

"suggested iron fertilization of the oceans to offset global warming"

This is really stupid, and is a perfect example of scientists not knowing anything they are talking about.

Assuming iron is the only limiting nutrient, and NOT assuming that something is missing from the shell formation when forcing iron makes something else limiting.

The cyanobacteria need phosphate and P is limiting.

These are the guys that are going to save us from global warming.

The cure just might kill us all.

.

Rick;Thanks for your objective and informed approach to our babble. I just returned from an assignment to
capture the mega fires which were recently so ubiquitous around San Diego.I just read an article about the whitening of The Great Barrier Reef. It seems that sugar cane production and the hyper fertilization of them has caused a lot of run off in that area.Could we use anything, with an opposite p H to balance the water or is that impossible?
Kipp

rick,

In the geological past the depth of the CCD has shown significant variation. For example, in the Cretaceous through to the Eocene the CCD was much shallower globally. In the late Eocene the development of Antarctic glaciers resulted in colder deep sea temperatures leading to a deeper CCD.

Are you sure about this statement? During the Cretaceous through Eocene, air temps and SSTs were much warmer than today resulting in, what I would think would be, a much deeper CCD. Hence, the large volume of carbonates deposited during this period. I would think that the statement should be just the opposite: deeper CCD during the Cretaceous through Eocene and shallower afterwards.

Terry,

This study suggests that planting new trees may do more harm than good.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2958.html

Quote ""Iron increases primary production by diatoms but our study adds another concern about the efficiency of iron fertilization," Mock says.

Scientists are also looking into manipulating the diatome genes responsible for the silica production in the shells in order to produce even smaller lines of computer chips."

So, are we saying...Feed the diatoms more iron so they can built smaller silica shell to have the jackpot of more carbon removed from the atmosphere and smaller and faster computers. Give me a BREAK!

Rick, of course my post is simplistic, you can't exactly put all the variants on a blog. We farm some 11% of land surface for crops, an estimated 25% could be used for arable. We have removed forest from a lot more than 1.5% of the land area. Sustainable practice based on coppice or pollard of fast growing species can provide all our energy needs, but the fuel is not as convenient as oil. In terms of rebalancing the ecology, however, there are no problems, just figures to be worked out. I can provide them if required, but it's easy enough to do them yourself. The problem is not soluble by considering emissions - again, that's not an opinion, it's a set of figures. Panic is a waste of time, this is not an extinction scenario.

John D - I know the article, and it suffers from the same thing any such post does, including this - for brevity, it's oversimplified. "Trees" means virtually nothing, a tree is more a mode of growth than anything else. Fast growing trees absorb CO2 faster. Light coloured foliage produces a more reflective albedo, but more reflection means less conversion of CO2 into plant material; variegated plants usually grow slower. Ground and soil vary as widely as trees. The author has a point to make, but not enough space to cover it properly. Editors pick quotes for sensational, not informative. The CO2 levels rise in tune with fossil fuel use, last year by 1.5ppm. A 20% reduction would mean that the rate of rise would slow down to 1.2ppm - historically rocket speed. The oceans have been absorbing large quantities of CO2 for the last 30 years or so - if all fossil fuel emissions are ending up in the atmosphere, that additional CO2 must be coming from somewhere. Farming overall produces a huge loss of plant matter, as does deforestation. Cutting down one forest and replacing it with another overall makes no change. It is a case of looking at balanced and intelligent ways of restoring the CO2 absorption - emission cycle. Preferably without panic and articles of faith. What is known is the world ecology is a producer (CO2 absorbing) - consumer (CO2 emitting) cycle, which is out of balance. The means of restoring the balance is a boost in producer activity, whether by trees, grasses, diatoms, hoseplants, revised farming techniques and many more.
In energy terms, however, the energy equivalent of 115 million bpd can be preoduced from woodland planted and harvested for the purpose. I have doubts about any biofuel which involves using only a small part of the plant, such as corn oil; I don't see the economics or ecology of that at all.
(oversimplified for brevity)

Here is a good example of populist driven "green" government damaging the environment. Europe is in such a rush to do "something" that they are doing the wrong thing. Scientific debate must not be stifled by Gore/Hansen/Ban panic politics.

To bio or not to bio - are 'green' fuels really good for the earth?

now a chill wind is blowing through this emerging industry. Fuels from vegetable oil, sugar, corn and a number of other crops and plants, collectively known as biofuels, are taking flak. There are doubts about their carbon savings, and concern over their impact on food supplies, prices and the land needed to grow them. This week, a parliamentary committee called for a moratorium on efforts to increase their use. Yet on Wednesday, the EU confirmed it will force oil companies to mix biofuel into petrol and diesel, while separate UK action on climate change will make all suppliers use biofuels by April.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/26/biofuels.carbonemissions

Patrick,

Please do everyone a favor and stick with AGW and not your political views on this blog. The Republicans are just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats when it comes to spreading and maintaining panic. Take a look at the build-up to the Iraq war. There was a recent study done by some independent journalists that found literally hundreds of misstatements and outright lies were made about Iraq and mass weapons of destruction prior to the war.

Believe it or not, taxes are going to be raised. Not by President Bush, because instead of paying for this war it's being added to the national debt so our kids and grandkids can pay for it, but who cares? We won't be around anyway.

Scaring children doesn't concern me as much as sending my children off to fight in some war based on dubious propositions. Heaven help them if they come back injured, because the care received at veteran's hospitals isn't always the greatest. It's to bad the work can't be subcontracted to Haliburton - maybe more federal money would go that way.

I don't believe the United Nations, or any other world organization should exist. By golly, if someone tramples on my rights as an Australian, American, or German may the best army win and let the chips fall where they may. If we have to, we'll pull out our nukes and teach them upstarts a lesson.

Finally, regarding President Bush's "sensible technical solutions" to global warming: I'm sure they'll work out great as long as there is some benefit for big business. I espouse Herbert Hoover's philosophy - what's good for big business is good for America. God bless Herbert Hoover and bring on the depression - let the lower income 90% of the country suffer - they deserve it.

Reply: Wait a minute "Paul"! Didn't you just tell Patrick to stick to AGW, but yet you ramble on about the Iraq War, Haliburton, Bush, republicans and democrats etc....

In all the controversy, world-wide, about "Global Warming", or any other of the phantom descriptions about the weather everywhere on this planet to-day, has any one given any clear attention to the history of "Climate" on this globe, whose whole history has been serial cooling and warming periods - presumably, for many, many millenia, - as pictures of Dutch and the River Thames in Winter between 1450 and 1650 so beautifully show. This one collection of evidence will at least show the opposite of what our disgraceful politicians and pseudo scientists are telling us is now happening in our whole world,for eternity, and will soon be followed, over our country and the entire costal limits, with wind-farms, which individually, will hardly re-charge a torch battery in a year. Should these scientists and politicians not be thinking already of what happens when the next "Ice Age" shows its ugly face, when all the heat available will be needed, as in the winter of 1947, for example, when we were warned of just that?

I don't think we will need to worry about global warming if food prices continue to soar. In an attempt to address alternative energy, has anybody on this board looked at what happens when corn is now being used for ethanol production instead of feeding the livestock??? I own a restaurant and I just looked at the yearly increases for each item we buy. Factoring in fuel costs, which accounts for some of the rise in price, it is like a runaway train. Flour is up 60 percent. Dairy is crazy. Now this is something to worry about and the fact is that man created this jump in food prices when they diverted the land use. Nobody today thinks ahead. The notion that we need to seed the oceans to help maybe with one problem could in fact cause irreversible problems we won't be able to fix, or at least not easily. Let's instead put on our thinking caps and be certain that we know what is causing global warming. Listen to the skeptics - perhaps if Washington had taken that advice the Iraq situation would be different today.

No doubt the UN was only thinking about the good of the planet when the sent the IPCC out to dismantle the US economy.

"It's an international spy nest," Tretyakov said of the U.N. "Inside the U.N., we were fishing for knowledgeable diplomats who could give us first of all anti-American information."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325827,00.html

Anyone?

Back to the trees again.

I understand that one medium sized tree will generate enough oxygen to keep one person alive. What is the maximum amount of CO2 that this tree can injest?

Hi Neville Chamberlain,

AGW is all about politics and money. I'd no sooner turn control of my life over to the UN, than America's forefathers would to the British.

Britain is likely to face a shortfall in electricity generation within five to seven years, a report concludes.

The energy and environment consultancy Inenco says that the number of nuclear and coal plants coming out of service over the period makes shortages likely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7210625.stm

Perhaps if Members of Parliament devoted themselves to thinking about something useful, they could avoid problems like this? Though I am sure it is more fun to get hysterical about CO2 and bash the United States - which seem to be the primary functions of the Parliament these days.

Yes its just to bad that the chlorine we place in the environment everyday and night destroys the ozone layer in antarctica where the phyloplankton grows at. which in return allows UVB rays to pass through the atmosphere destroying the phyloplankton. You can't continue to talk about this and not reveal the true problem as being chlorine. Never will we even put a dent in the CO2 problem so long as we use chlorine. To answer the next set of questions no other element on earth is capable of destroying ozone except for chlorine. Its a perfect killer it kills the 1st part of the foodchain.

John D
Figures