What if we become a Carbonless Society, but Carbon Levels in the Atmosphere still rise?

Question

Let's say we switch everything over to a carbonless society (Except for Humans and Animals exhaling CO2) and we still see the CO2 levels rising? Then what?

Gwen I gave you the source. Animals and Humans. We exhale CO2.

Bob, CO2 levels have risen and fallen in our Atmosphere throughout our planets conception. I just looked at a graph reflecting that fact from the Ice Core they pulled out of Antarctica. So I don't feel my question is foolish at all. And it appears others don't think so either.

Thanks Dana, for a well thought out answer. I really do appreciate it.

Gwen, then from what you are saying you think the Carbon Cycle has never fluctuated causing CO2 in our Atmosphere to go up and down? Then what about those graphs I saw yesterday showing increases and decreases in the CO2 levels from the Ice Core they pulled out of Antarctica to study? It has risen and fallen in the past, it has never been 100% stable.

There are a couple of other natural CO2 emitters I forgot to mention Decomposing Vegetation. Forest Fires (We unfortunately can't eliminate that from ever happening, since even lighting strikes can cause fires to start. And little 9 year Old kids playing with matches. I can't help but feel bad for that poor little kid in California that started one of the fires this year.)

Volcanoes, What happens to the CO2 we exhale in the winter? When the plants around us are dorment? Basicly how much CO2 can 1 tree absorb? Is it: 10 humans 1 tree? 100 humans 1 tree? 1000 humans 1 tree? Have the scientists been able to figure that out yet?

I might Google that to see what I can find, but if anyone knows it would be an interesting little tidbit.

Dana - I just finished reading the second article you posted for me to read and I hate to say it, but it seems to go more with my thinking than what you are trying to convince me of.

Especially this entire paragraph:

Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations was about 300 ppm. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 370 ppm. Humans may be able to take credit for some of these additions, but not all of them. Earth's plant life will respond to soak up these additions with additional biologic activity, but this takes time. Meanwhile perhaps up to 9% of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today may be attributable to human-related activities like agriculture, industry, and transportation. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures.

For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Oh dear, Dana I found another tidbit from the site you gave me to read:

Based on the analysis of entrapped air from ice cores extracted from permanent glaciers from various regions around the globe, it has been demonstrated that global warming began 18,000 years ago, accompanied by a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. What caused this phenomenon is a matter of ongoing debate. Clearly, though, global warming and rising CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere started long before the industrial revolution.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html

Answer 1

CO2 being a heavier molecule will sink to the ground or the 3/4ths of the worlds surface = the oceans - to be absorbed in soil or water. The oceans can hold about 50 times the CO2 that the atmosphere holds. If oceans are heated the CO2 will not absorb back in as quickly, causing CO2 build up in very low atmospheres.

The idea that CO2 in higher atmospheres 'reflect' the heat is very flawed -
First no one has established any significant amount of the heavier CO2 molecule even exists in higher atmospheres.
Second - from: http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
"There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming

"Greenhouse gases" absorb all radiation available to them in a few meters. More of the gas cannot absorb more radiation. A thick sheet of plastic does nothing more than a thin sheet. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance for absorption of radiation from 10 meters to 5 meters, which is not an increase in temperature."

If you read the whole web page the logic presented is far more powerful than all of the scientific rationalizations.
Again: have you ever heard an Alarmist mention the earth's
mantel (about 20-30 miles under us) at 1600 - 4000 degrees?

Answer 2

Maybe...

The concentration of greenhouse gases would still continue to increase. This would mainly be due to the ongoing warming due to the current levels of greenhouse gases (higher than the pre-industrial levels). This ongoing warming would by melting the Siberian permafrost release large quantities of methane.
Due to changes in rain patters, some region which until now were swampland might become dryer and their peat would be digested by microorganisms, releasing methane and CO2.

DANA: There is a solution to these loop reactions since we will be able to use carbon capture and storage...
If we capture the CO2 from large plants running on biofuels, we would have a net decrease in atmospheric CO2. We can furthermore do more to shorten the methane path.

But anybody who knows about PID systems knows how stabilizing a response is complicated, especially when we do not know the function. What are the effects of doing too less? of overshooting?

Answer 3

It wouldn't happen. The natural carbon cycle absorbs more carbon than it emits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg

This includes animals exhaling CO2!!

Before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentrations varied between 180 and 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. Now they're over 380 ppm.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Quite simply, other than humans, there is currently no source of CO2 which would make atmospheric concentrations continue to rise.

If the levels did continue to rise, it would mean that the planet has warmed so much that it has triggered a CO2 feedback, such as the oceans warming so much that they can no longer absorb sufficient CO2, and become net CO2 emitters (emitting more than they absorb) because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water.

If that happens, we're completely screwed because there's not much we can do to stop runaway global warming. That's one of the reasons it's so crucial that we get the problem under control before these feedbacks are triggered.


*edit* I probably should have read what my linked site said. I was just looking for a graph of the Vostok ice core data.

I don't know where they get that 9% figure. Isotopic analysis has shown that all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 (from 280 ppm to 380 ppm) has been due to human fossil fuel emissions. I don't know how they get 9% because 100 ppm out of 380 ppm is over 25%.

As for the later points, you can't compare current conditions to those millions of years ago. As has been stated many times, there are other factors effecting the Earth's climate besides greenhouse gases.

There is no denying that the current warming is primarily due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing else can account for the increase.

My fault - I think I provided a link to a page with inaccurate information. This is why I generally prefer to link to Wikipedia.

Answer 4

Hyperthetically, if that were to happen, we would have to re-think how the atmosphere works. As fossil fuels contain a lot of carbon, which when burnt emits carbon dioxide, it seems reasonable that buring fossile fuels would increase atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Animals turn carbon from food into carbon dioxide, but the carbon in food comes from plants which extract carbon dioxide from the air. For the most part, carbon just goes round in a cycle.

Answer 5

From what source? We know by their isotopic signatures that the problematic CO2 is from fossil fuels.
But here is a bit of a conundrum for you. If we become a carbonless society tomorrow CO2 would continue to rise for at least six year or more due to the lag in climate system.

EDIT- I am aware of what you said and I'm asking you what would the source of this CO2 you are talking about? The atmosphere takes six years to respond to increased CO2, so we can expect an increase in global warming for at least six years after we stopped emitting. We must also remember that the ocean's capacity to hold CO2 in solution is related to temperature and an increase in CO2 from GHGs results also in an increase in CO2 from the oceans. It would take several years for COs levels to stop increasing after we stopped emitting, but eventually it would balance out. The source of human and animal CO2 through respiration in a carbonless society is the atmosphere, so we are part of the carbon cycle and respiration does not contribute to global warming as long as we keep the cycle in balance. Emitting CO2 from fossil fuels, eutrophication of lakes and cutting down whole forests does not keep the carbon cycle in balance.

EDIT: No, I did not say there have never been fluxes in atmospheric CO2. As I have pointed out temperature affects the ocean’s capacity to hold CO2 in solution. Though natural temperature changes associated with the Milenkovic Cycle and even to a lesser extent, solar irradiance (one possible explanation for the medieval warming and little ice age) will result in fluxes in CO2 due to warming of the oceans. This does not happen over night and takes hundreds of years unlike what we are seeing today. Neither of these are presently a factor in the warming of the planet. In fact if you look at the current earth sun relationship (the Milenkovic Cycle) we should be in a cooling period but we are not we are warming.
You cannot compare CO2 concentrations with climates 460 million years ago, the climate system and biological drivers of climate were completely different. You also have to take into consideration that continents were not in the same position they are in today which greatly affects climate.
One thing you are forgetting about when you talk about CO2 is it’s not necessarily the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere, it’s that rate we have increased the amount and the rate of temperature. The rate of change far outstrips the planet’s capacity to compensate for the change, which will lead to the destruction of planetary ecosystems. Without many of those planetary ecosystems, we become incapable of feeding 6.5 billion people. Our global economy depends on a global temperature within a couple of degrees of what we call normal, any warmer or colder and our global economy becomes strained with a real potential for collapse due to a loss of agricultural capacity and sea level rise. For a graphical view of the carbon cycle, do an internet search of the “Keeling Curve.”

Yes warming did begin around 18000 years ago until it reached the Holocene climatic optimum around 8000 years ago, and then it began to cool again. With a few bumps like the Medieval Warm Period it continued to cool until we came along.

Answer 6

That's scientifically impossible. Because of the "carbon cycle".

You NEED to learn about the "carbon cycle". You're spinning your wheels and asking nonsense questions because you lack that basic scientific knowledge. Google it and go. Or see the link below.

The Earth recycles CO2 very effectively by this cycle, keeping it it relative balance. Which is the answer to Nickel's concerns.

It hasn't been over 300 ppm naturally for hundreds of thousands of years. Why? The "carbon cycle".

Right now we're at 400. The extra comes from burning fossil fuels, and NOT from our breath. Scientists know that because CO2 from fossil fuels has a "fingerprint", a specific "isotopic ratio".

Please, learn about the science of the carbon cycle. Is that a bad thing?

You could start here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

EDIT - "Bob, CO2 levels have risen and fallen in our Atmosphere throughout our planets conception." Yes, but, for modern conditions (the last half million years or so), the upper limit is 300 ppm. Look at the graph below. And once again, the increased CO2 (above 300) is PROVEN to come from burning fossil fuels.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

If we become a carbonless society, CO2 levels will eventually fall below 300 ppm, their maximum natural level for the Earth under modern conditions. Absolutely guaranteed scientific fact.

"Basicly how much CO2 can 1 tree absorb? Is it: 10 humans 1 tree? 100 humans 1 tree? 1000 humans 1 tree? Have the scientists been able to figure that out yet?"

Sure. But you can see what's happening for yourself, very easily.

Look at this graph.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=png&dataid=200702142947

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.

Look up the "carbon cycle". Most of your answers are there.

Answer 7

I would expect carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to continue to rise for a short period and then start to decline.

The hard part will be convincing the rest of the world to stop using fossil fuels so that we can become a carbonless society.
.

Answer 8

Then nothing. CO2 increases with warming, it doesn't cause warming.

Even if we go carbonless, co2 will vary with temperatures.