SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through fossil fuel combustion. About 40% of this carbon stays in the atmosphere and roughly 30% enters the ocean, and we are not too sure where all the rest goes.
Most scientists thought the remaining carbon was taken up by plants, but measurements show plants don't absorb all of the remaining 30% of carbon we generate.
Lots of theories have been expounded about where the leftover carbon is being stored.
A study published in Geophysical Research Letters suggests some of this carbon may be disappearing underneath the world's deserts – a process exacerbated by irrigation, beginning as recently as 2000 years ago.
When cultivating and irrigating arid/saline lands in arid zones, salts are leached downward. Simultaneously, dissolved inorganic carbon is washed down into the huge saline aquifers underneath vast deserts, forming a large carbon sink or pool.
Researchers studying the Tarim Basin in China, found that around 20 billion metric tons of carbon is stored underneath the desert, dissolved in an aquifer that contains roughly ten times the amount of water held in the Great Lakes.
This is a carbon sink that is not observable in plant or soil, with dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) leached from irrigated arid land and deposited in the saline/alkaline aquifers under bare deserts. For the most part, this is a one way trip for the carbon. No mechanism has been identified for return to the surface or the atmosphere.
More importantly, the DIC goes into an almost untouched pool in saline/alkaline aquifers hidden beneath deserts, which is estimated to be up to 1000 Pg (1,102,311,310 kilotons) globally, large enough to be recognized as the third largest active carbon pool on land.
Such carbon sinks formed during groundwater recharge has been reported before. But never on this scale.
The amount of dissolved inorganic carbon stored is 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher than previously thought.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @02:41PM
What assumptions are made to calculate this 30% missing carbon value? For example, to get climate sensitivity they assume a flat earth and constant linear relationship between total input energy and average temperature. Obviously, deviations from such calculations should be expected to be substantial and dont really indicate something is physically missing. Are similar simplifications used to get this 30%?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 22 2015, @02:59PM
They get the numbers like this:
We pretty well know how much CO2 is emitted based on how much fuel is used each year. Because the chemistry of that isn't hard.
We record atmospheric CO2 levels year to year by direct sampling. We do the same with ocean CO2 levels. We can account for 70% of the former through applying a bit of math to the latter. It has no dependency on climate change models or anything else and you haven't spotted some crucial flaw in the theory no one has seen before. Sorry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @05:03PM
What's the bit of math? And it never turns out I have discovered a new problem. From what I can tell, flaws are always well known for decades but no learning seems to occur in the current academic environment.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 22 2015, @06:08PM
To your first question:
We've long since calculated the mass of the atmosphere(A simple matter of running weather balloons up to various heights with barometers attached and calculating the value of spheric sections) and oceans(a lot harder, but the approximate depth of the ocean around the globe has been measured by sonar, and the density of water is almost but not quite constant). These are boring known quantities.
To your following statement: no, I'm sorry, you're seeing conspiracies to suppress your point of view when you're just straight up wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @10:52PM
Well you didn't answer my question of how it is calculated (instead talking about the mass of the atmosphere?) and all the papers referenced by this one regarding the deviation were paywalled. So I guess normal people are just screwed out of knowing, maybe I'll look at it later. Also averaging anything over the surface of a sphere is not trivial, it is an unsolved problem, so I know you do not know what you are talking about:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9600801/evenly-distributing-n-points-on-a-sphere [stackoverflow.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @12:15AM
Not the GP, just thought I'd help you out...
Well you didn't answer my question of how it is calculated (instead talking about the mass of the atmosphere?)
Let me spell it out:
To compute the amount of X in the atmosphere, determine the average concentration of X, determine the mass of the atmosphere, and multiply.
If you still don't get it, substitute X=CO2 in the above sentence, and read it out loud (slowly, if necessary -- we'll wait).
Also averaging anything over the surface of a sphere is not trivial, it is an unsolved problem, so I know you do not know what you are talking about
But averaging does not require "evenly distributing n points on a sphere" -- you can take measurements at an arbitrary set of points, calculate appropriate weights (weight of each point is proportional to the area of that point's region on a Voronoi diagram [jasondavies.com]), and compute a weighted average. Quantifying the error in such an average appears non-trivial, even knowing/assuming limiting parameters (such as maximum spacial frequency or maximum gradient) about the actual distribution of the variable being measured and averaged, but the average itself is quite simple.
Because you conflate averaging of samples with selection of sampling points, we know you don't know what you're talking about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @12:38AM
Fellow AC. I actually followed one of the papers and see there is a very complex methodology behind these numbers (as I expected). Please stop acting like you know what you are talking about without citing sources, it only hurts your cause:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=11267&cid=279986#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @12:02AM
I followed one of the references, which only says this regarding the averages:
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature11299 [nature.com]
Following to reference 23:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD00859/abstract [wiley.com]
I haven't figured out what assumptions are being made here yet, but whatever was done, it is not simple subtraction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @01:22AM
Same AC, reading more:
Interesting, so one assumption made is that CO2 at the poles is equal to that at whatever most extreme latitude they have a measurement from.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 22 2015, @06:15PM
What's the bit of math?
Subtraction; maybe you've heard of it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 22 2015, @07:01PM
What's the bit of math?
Subtraction; maybe you've heard of it.
I am starting to believe that this particular Anonymous Coward may not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @11:14PM
If it is that simple I am certain it is wrong. For example, when estimating the amount of carbon in the troposphere they may assume a constant mean troposphere height rather than consider the fact it is about 2x higher at the equator then poles, thus allowing more carbon to be stored at the equator. If they don't do this "constant tropopause" simplification, the calculation must be somewhat more complex. If they do that simplification, the answer will be wrong by a substantial amount (although 30% still seems like a lot, 5-10% is more what I would expect just due to that one but I haven't checked it).
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:36AM
If it is that simple I am certain it is wrong.
Kind of an "inverse Ockham's Razor", no doubt? But William of Ockham was a famous guy, and you are just some anonymous coward on SolyentNews with "feelings" about "numbers". Yeah, you must be right. All of us bow down to your superior Oil-company funded intellect - - -NOT! I predict, on the basis of Hanlon's Razor, that you are off by at least 180 degrees. Would you knot agree?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @02:41PM
"Kind of an "inverse Ockham's Razor", no doubt?"
Yes, similar to the idea that an average is more accurate with more data, a model is more accurate as it captures more aspects of reality. Anyway, this thread has increased my conviction that most people concerned about CO2 have never really looked into it at all. If it were just due to paywalls that would be one thing. But it seems worse, like they are either trolling or are unfamiliar with even the basic methods of science.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:00PM
No, seriously, you are coming across as a "denier". You may not be, you may be perfectly sincere in your desire to be "scientifically correct" on the CO2 sinks, but that would not be the simplest explanation. Look at frojack's posts on topics like this. He is a master at being a denialist shill, no accusations of incorrect data or lack of understanding of scientific method, but just enough friendly injection of uncertainty to keep the client's position alive. That is all the Oil companies are asking for anyway. Denialism is one of those places where just a bit too much will destroy the entire effort. You seem to have crossed that line.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:24AM
If the only one in the thread providing sources, etc rather than pulling stuff out of the grass (later conclusively shown by the sources to be proved wrong) sounds like a "denier", it speaks very poorly of the CO2 concerned crowd. Learn some basic scholarly research and science fundamentals or keep your mouth shut. That is all I'm saying.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 24 2015, @01:21AM
Oh, I'm sorry! You were providing sources? I thought you had nothing but exaggerated ball-park estimates of margins of error. But if you had actual sources, I must have missed them, so by all means please provide them again. I am sure everyone is interested in seeing your data!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @02:17AM
Huh? It is right above where you are posting. Sorry if it is undeserved, but I am marking you as a troll account. Maybe it is alcohol, reefer, whatever, but the end effect is the same.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 24 2015, @03:57AM
Well, OK, if you want to be a troll instead of providing some actual information, it is fine with me! I looked, and cannot see any sources you have provided. The closest was this:
For example, when estimating the amount of carbon in the troposphere they may assume a constant mean troposphere height rather than consider the fact it is about 2x higher at the equator then poles, thus allowing more carbon to be stored at the equator. If they don't do this "constant tropopause" simplification, the calculation must be somewhat more complex. If they do that simplification, the answer will be wrong by a substantial amount (although 30% still seems like a lot, 5-10% is more what I would expect just due to that one but I haven't checked it).
But as I said, i see no citation here only throwing around of words like "troposphere" (god, that's a nice word!) and the idea that that would make the calculation more complex. without the slightest evidence that this would be the case other than your own say-so. Good day, sir! I said, Good day!
(Score: 2) by captain_nifty on Tuesday December 22 2015, @06:32PM
We did this as a class project in a sustainable energy engineering class I took in college, it is a little more complicated than you imply but not a lot.
One thing was it clearly showed that the changes to CO2 levels are most definitely caused by burning fossil fuels, the curves matched pretty well.
It was also truly staggering how much oil/coal has been and is extracted from the ground and burned, the scale is pretty impressive.
That was an interesting class with lots of data/ back of the envelope calculations on energy expenditures and production. Things like "how much ground has to be covered with solar panel to power the country/world?" and "how much wood/biomass would we have to burn to meet existing energy needs?" and some interesting data analysis evaluating site data for solar or wind installations.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday December 22 2015, @06:45PM
That was an interesting class with lots of data/ back of the envelope calculations on energy expenditures and production.
And probably hopelessly out of date by the time you took the class.
The field is changing very rapidly and is full of fudged numbers, false claims, and instructor politics.
Even Germany's going 100% renewable is a big lie these days, as they have built new coal plants and import power to cover the losses due to shutting down their Nukes, all the while ballyhooing a few days in mid summer when some significant portion of power used in highly selective sections of the energy market.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 22 2015, @07:15PM
One thing was it clearly showed that the changes to CO2 levels are most definitely caused by burning fossil fuels, the curves matched pretty well.
You don't need to rely on correlation to prove this point. By measuring the isotpopes of atmospheric CO2 you can determine, empirically, how much was created by fossil fuels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @09:22PM
Exxon's scientists examined old wine to measure the past preponderance of carbon isotopes.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business [insideclimatenews.org]