Stom wrote: Donny osmond wrote:
Stom wrote:The thing about climate change is...
No matter whether you believe in it or not, 80% of the changes required to fight it benefit 80% of the population...
So the only reason we're not doing more as a civilization is to line the pockets of the Saudis, Putin and his cronies, Winnie the Pooh, and several American oil barons.
Speaking of which... it seems like trying to chase oil companies for damages is more widespread than I had realised.https://amp.ft.com/content/d5fbeae4-869 ... ssion=true
What's most interesting about these to me is that they suggest there is a large degree of recognition about the effects of climate change but no concurrent drive to make changes, or to try and reduce CO2 levels, only to try and mitigate those effects.
Is it chemically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in part quantities? Like, if other resources (money, time, will) weren't an issue, can it be done?
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
Well, the melting glaciers might not actually be about temperature, but about the earth trying to reduce its carbon dioxide levels...https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ainforests
Interesting, although misleadingly/abiguously written article, ie
for decades, the northern rivers secretly pulled carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a rate faster than the Amazon rainforest.
This means that during high melt periods, glacial river water will absorb 40 times as much carbon as the Amazon rainforest.
“On a per-metre-squared basis, these rivers can consume a phenomenal amount of carbon dioxide,” said St Pierre. But their limited size means on a gross scale, they pull in far less than the sprawling Amazon.
Potentially drawing in more CO2 than the Amazon, or just per metre-squared?
I had to go to the research paper to see that it was indeed just per metre-squared, even at times of high melt. It's much smaller than the Amazon in absolute terms.
So, I'm afraid glaciers melting is indeed all about the temparatures - they will not significantly offset CO2 released in other ways. And of course when the glaciers are gone, Earth will reflect less sunlight back into space, hence warm up even more.
Also, not mentioned in the article is, well what happens to all the CO2 absorbed? My first thought was that it eventually flows into the sea and so ends up in the atmosphere in time. However, in fact, chemical reactions in the proglacial lakes cause the CO2 to be "consumed" ie used to form another chemical, hence actually removed from the atmosphere (fairly) permanently.