carbon tipping points...

andyandy · 15th August 2006, 03:51 AM

this is from an article in the guradian on

"the most comprehensive analysis yet of the potential effects of human-made global warming." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...844789,00.html

Quote:

A 3C warming could also present a yet more dangerous scenario where the temperatures induce plants to become net producers of carbon dioxide. "As temperatures go up, plants like it better and they start to grow more vigorously and start to take up more carbon dioxide from the air," Dr O'Neill said. "But there comes a point where the take-up is saturated for a given vegetation cover, then the ecosystem starts to respire more than it's taking up."

my question is over this vegetation "tipping point" - and its effect....

so, at the moment carbon in the atmosphere is increasing, so that means better growing conditions for plants....(ignoring deforestisation/pollution etc..)
the more the carbon, the greater the growth...
so there could get to a saturation level for a type of vegetation cover in a given area, some would die and give out carbon....but why would this be a "tipping point"? Surely saturation would just limit growth to a maximum level...?

or maybe i'm misunderstanding something basic here.....

Cuddles · 15th August 2006, 04:05 AM

I think this may be due to oversimplification in the article. What I think he means is that while the mass of plant life is increasing, the plants absorb the CO2 produced by all life in the system, plants and animals. At some point there will be no room for more plants, so if the amount of CO2 still increases there is nothing to balance it out and the effects will suddenly increase much faster. I'm not convinced this could happen in an isolated ecosystem, which is what seems to be implied from these quotes, but if extra CO2 is pumped in from an external source as well (us) then there will be a "tipping point" where plants can no longer balance the combined effect of us and respiration.

YoPopa · 15th August 2006, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

so there could get to a saturation level for a type of vegetation cover in a given area, some would die and give out carbon....but why would this be a "tipping point"? Surely saturation would just limit growth to a maximum level...?

IIRC..There is a saturation level for all types of plant environments.

The pity is that saturation levels in many instances represent a lost opportunity. Simplistic solutions such as mandatory recycling fail to take this into account. A small forest of trees planted for pulp absorbs a huge quantity of carbon. Harvest those trees regularly, bury used paper in landfills and plant more pulp tree farms. It's not the solution to all the excess carbon in the air but it's a start. Government mandates have now made this almost impossible to implement in many places.

Thanks tree huggers.

andyandy · 15th August 2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

Thanks tree huggers.

don't worry, there won't be any trees left for them to hug soon

YoPopa · 15th August 2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by andyandy

don't worry, there won't be any trees left for them to hug soon

Evidence?

Where I come from (New England) there more trees today than there were 100 years ago.

andyandy · 16th August 2006, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

Evidence?

Where I come from (New England) there more trees today than there were 100 years ago.

you need evidence for jokes on JREF?

YoPopa · 16th August 2006, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

you need evidence for jokes on JREF?

CapelDodger · 16th August 2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

IIRC..There is a saturation level for all types of plant environments.

Inevitably, since there are various constraints - water, nutrients, space and so on.

Quote:

The pity is that saturation levels in many instances represent a lost opportunity. Simplistic solutions such as mandatory recycling fail to take this into account. A small forest of trees planted for pulp absorbs a huge quantity of carbon. Harvest those trees regularly, bury used paper in landfills and plant more pulp tree farms. It's not the solution to all the excess carbon in the air but it's a start. Government mandates have now made this almost impossible to implement in many places.

Thanks tree huggers.

Carbon sequestration, but by a rather inefficient method.

Landfill volume is an increasingly limited resource near the centres of paper consumption, which is one reason for city and county governments promoting recycling. The paper trade likes it because re-pulping paper is a lot less energy-intensive than pulping trees, and the waste paper is available close to centres of demand whereas forests generally aren't.

Of course the buried paper could provide a fossil-fuel for the next-but-three dominant species way down the line

.

CapelDodger · 16th August 2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by andyandy

you need evidence for jokes on JREF?

Not as long as you can prove it's a joke.

(Smilies aren't proof.)

YoPopa · 16th August 2006, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Carbon sequestration, but by a rather inefficient method.

Whether it's efficient or inefficient could easily be determined by a free market. I say could but that would require a free market which no longer exists where I live. Government mandates have seen to it that recycling is the only choice for towns in Massachusetts.

Quote:

Landfill volume is an increasingly limited resource near the centres of paper consumption, which is one reason for city and county governments promoting recycling. The paper trade likes it because re-pulping paper is a lot less energy-intensive than pulping trees, and the waste paper is available close to centres of demand whereas forests generally aren't.

Landfill volume is not the issue in the US. There is more landfill volume available today than there was 15 or 20 years ago. If the paper trade really liked post consumer pulp they would be willing to pay as much or more for it but they don't in many cases.

Our small town in MA has to pay to have paper hauled away. We could easily bury it for a lot less money and a lot less expenditure of fossil fuels for the transportation. I should not have to mention the fossil fuel consumption because that is already in the equation and is part of the reason the costs of recycling are high.

American · 16th August 2006, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Inevitably, since there are various constraints - water, nutrients, space and so on.

One may also consider adaptive constraints, or rather selective advantage. Presumably most everything will become more robust to high CO2 levels (at the small cost of 99% of related things dying off somewhat because they don't like it).

CapelDodger · 20th August 2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

Whether it's efficient or inefficient could easily be determined by a free market. I say could but that would require a free market which no longer exists where I live. Government mandates have seen to it that recycling is the only choice for towns in Massachusetts.

It's inefficient just by examination. Turning trees into pulp takes a lot of energy, if you've ever inadvertantly walked into a tree or, heaven forfend, had one fall on you you'll see my point. Paper, not so much. There'd be more bang to the buck if you re-cycled paper and buried the equivalent in trees back at source. Hard to see how the free market could come up with that scheme, though.

Quote:

Landfill volume is not the issue in the US.

I don't doubt it, I've seen pictures of the Grand Canyon and that alone, well, it's an impressive volume.

Quote:

There is more landfill volume available today than there was 15 or 20 years ago.

Why is that? Depletion at quarries and mines? A new definition or formula? I'm genuinely intrigued.

Quote:

If the paper trade really liked post consumer pulp they would be willing to pay as much or more for it but they don't in many cases.

Paper manufacture is highly integrated, so they buy (even if they produce) sources of pulp as well as sheet-pulp from pulpers. And they do buy used paper as a source. What they don't do is collect it door-to-door, they're not geared-up for that. They buy bulk, and their supply is generally short of demand without gumment-backed recycling schemes. With such schemes, it exceeds demand. With piecemeal schemes the market gyrates horribly.

The industry will never recycle all paper because fibre-lengths are attrited. Robust tree-fibres, "fresh meat" as it's known in the system, will always be fed in. there's a Midnight Cowboy feel to the whole thing.

Quote:

Our small town in MA has to pay to have paper hauled away. We could easily bury it for a lot less money and a lot less expenditure of fossil fuels for the transportation. I should not have to mention the fossil fuel consumption because that is already in the equation and is part of the reason the costs of recycling are high.

Are you sure you guys could bury it for less? How deep, and under where?

CapelDodger · 20th August 2006, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by American

One may also consider adaptive constraints, or rather selective advantage. Presumably most everything will become more robust to high CO2 levels (at the small cost of 99% of related things dying off somewhat because they don't like it).

There'll surely be an adaptive explosion after the Holocene Extinction, just as there has been after all the others. (Contrary to some reports, the Holocene Extinction is still going on.)

YoPopa · 21st August 2006, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

It's inefficient just by examination. Turning trees into pulp takes a lot of energy, if you've ever inadvertantly walked into a tree or, heaven forfend, had one fall on you you'll see my point. Paper, not so much. There'd be more bang to the buck if you re-cycled paper and buried the equivalent in trees back at source. Hard to see how the free market could come up with that scheme, though.

"inefficient just by examination"? I'm not sure what that means but it sounds like you're saying that because it's obvious to you it must be true. It's not obvious to me and I don't believe that turning trees into pulp requires that much energy (or chemical processes) relative to that required to recycle paper.

I know whereof I speak regarding the energy to harvest trees. I've heated my home for most of the last 25 years with wood that I cut, split, and dried on my own property. It's no big deal to do this with a chain saw, a pickup truck, and a splitting maul. I've also been a cabinetmaker for over 30 years. But I'm a rustic primitive when it comes to the harvest of pulp trees. The mechanical harvesters that they use today have made the harvesting and chipping of pulp extremely efficient.

Quote:

Why is that? Depletion at quarries and mines? A new definition or formula? I'm genuinely intrigued.

The fact that there is more available landfill volume today than years past is no longer disputed by either side in the debate. There are fewer landfills but the new ones are much larger. The reasons are complicated by a host of factors from NIMBYism to government mandates but I think the simplest explanation is that waste disposal is now big business. Modern landfills are highly engineered affairs with plastic and clay liners and it's more cost effective to create them on a larger scale.

Quote:

Paper manufacture is highly integrated, so they buy (even if they produce) sources of pulp as well as sheet-pulp from pulpers. And they do buy used paper as a source. What they don't do is collect it door-to-door, they're not geared-up for that. They buy bulk, and their supply is generally short of demand without gumment-backed recycling schemes. With such schemes, it exceeds demand. With piecemeal schemes the market gyrates horribly.

The point here is that recycling paper is not cost effective unless you have "gumment-backed recycling schemes". In fact it's not cost effective when you factor in the costs which have been now been hidden by the "gumment" mandates. These costs include all the energy to collect the widely distributed post consumer paper and transport it to the processors. The costs are hidden because they have been absorbed at the community level and are not passed on to the paper industry.

Quote:

The industry will never recycle all paper because fibre-lengths are attrited. Robust tree-fibres, "fresh meat" as it's known in the system, will always be fed in. there's a Midnight Cowboy feel to the whole thing.

Fibre length is another argument in favor of virgin materials which are required for high quality product. Thanks for mentioning that. I don't know why you mention "Midnight Cowboy feel". Is it that you think "Cowboy" is an insult and you need to throw one in once in awhile?

Quote:

Are you sure you guys could bury it for less? How deep, and under where?

Yes, I'm quite sure we could bury paper for less, not that paper needs to be buried deeply or at all. How much leachate is there from paper? IMHO 3 or 4 feet of paper might make a good landfill liner.

I'm not saying that every community should bury their paper. If a community has a facility that will PAY them for their non-subsidized paper waste then they should have the choice to sell to that facility. Many other communities would benefit more from being able to bury the waste with the bonus that carbon is being sequestered.

A very good explanation of why Recycling is a Waste of Good Waste.

15th August 2006, 03:51 AM	#1
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	carbon tipping points... this is from an article in the guradian on "the most comprehensive analysis yet of the potential effects of human-made global warming." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...844789,00.html Quote: A 3C warming could also present a yet more dangerous scenario where the temperatures induce plants to become net producers of carbon dioxide. "As temperatures go up, plants like it better and they start to grow more vigorously and start to take up more carbon dioxide from the air," Dr O'Neill said. "But there comes a point where the take-up is saturated for a given vegetation cover, then the ecosystem starts to respire more than it's taking up." my question is over this vegetation "tipping point" - and its effect.... so, at the moment carbon in the atmosphere is increasing, so that means better growing conditions for plants....(ignoring deforestisation/pollution etc..) the more the carbon, the greater the growth... so there could get to a saturation level for a type of vegetation cover in a given area, some would die and give out carbon....but why would this be a "tipping point"? Surely saturation would just limit growth to a maximum level...? or maybe i'm misunderstanding something basic here.....
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

15th August 2006, 04:05 AM	#2
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,591	I think this may be due to oversimplification in the article. What I think he means is that while the mass of plant life is increasing, the plants absorb the CO2 produced by all life in the system, plants and animals. At some point there will be no room for more plants, so if the amount of CO2 still increases there is nothing to balance it out and the effects will suddenly increase much faster. I'm not convinced this could happen in an isolated ecosystem, which is what seems to be implied from these quotes, but if extra CO2 is pumped in from an external source as well (us) then there will be a "tipping point" where plants can no longer balance the combined effect of us and respiration.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

15th August 2006, 01:32 PM	#4
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Originally Posted by YoPopa Thanks tree huggers. don't worry, there won't be any trees left for them to hug soon
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

16th August 2006, 01:09 AM	#6
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Originally Posted by YoPopa Evidence? Where I come from (New England) there more trees today than there were 100 years ago. you need evidence for jokes on JREF?
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

16th August 2006, 03:34 PM	#8
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,744	Originally Posted by YoPopa IIRC..There is a saturation level for all types of plant environments. Inevitably, since there are various constraints - water, nutrients, space and so on. Quote: The pity is that saturation levels in many instances represent a lost opportunity. Simplistic solutions such as mandatory recycling fail to take this into account. A small forest of trees planted for pulp absorbs a huge quantity of carbon. Harvest those trees regularly, bury used paper in landfills and plant more pulp tree farms. It's not the solution to all the excess carbon in the air but it's a start. Government mandates have now made this almost impossible to implement in many places. Thanks tree huggers. Carbon sequestration, but by a rather inefficient method. Landfill volume is an increasingly limited resource near the centres of paper consumption, which is one reason for city and county governments promoting recycling. The paper trade likes it because re-pulping paper is a lot less energy-intensive than pulping trees, and the waste paper is available close to centres of demand whereas forests generally aren't. Of course the buried paper could provide a fossil-fuel for the next-but-three dominant species way down the line .
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

15th August 2006, 11:10 AM	#3
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by andyandy so there could get to a saturation level for a type of vegetation cover in a given area, some would die and give out carbon....but why would this be a "tipping point"? Surely saturation would just limit growth to a maximum level...? IIRC..There is a saturation level for all types of plant environments. The pity is that saturation levels in many instances represent a lost opportunity. Simplistic solutions such as mandatory recycling fail to take this into account. A small forest of trees planted for pulp absorbs a huge quantity of carbon. Harvest those trees regularly, bury used paper in landfills and plant more pulp tree farms. It's not the solution to all the excess carbon in the air but it's a start. Government mandates have now made this almost impossible to implement in many places. Thanks tree huggers.

15th August 2006, 05:15 PM	#5
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by andyandy don't worry, there won't be any trees left for them to hug soon Evidence? Where I come from (New England) there more trees today than there were 100 years ago.

16th August 2006, 03:12 AM	#7
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by andyandy you need evidence for jokes on JREF?

16th August 2006, 03:37 PM	#9
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,744	Originally Posted by andyandy you need evidence for jokes on JREF? Not as long as you can prove it's a joke. (Smilies aren't proof.)
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

16th August 2006, 05:41 PM	#10
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by CapelDodger Carbon sequestration, but by a rather inefficient method. Whether it's efficient or inefficient could easily be determined by a free market. I say could but that would require a free market which no longer exists where I live. Government mandates have seen to it that recycling is the only choice for towns in Massachusetts. Quote: Landfill volume is an increasingly limited resource near the centres of paper consumption, which is one reason for city and county governments promoting recycling. The paper trade likes it because re-pulping paper is a lot less energy-intensive than pulping trees, and the waste paper is available close to centres of demand whereas forests generally aren't. Landfill volume is not the issue in the US. There is more landfill volume available today than there was 15 or 20 years ago. If the paper trade really liked post consumer pulp they would be willing to pay as much or more for it but they don't in many cases. Our small town in MA has to pay to have paper hauled away. We could easily bury it for a lot less money and a lot less expenditure of fossil fuels for the transportation. I should not have to mention the fossil fuel consumption because that is already in the equation and is part of the reason the costs of recycling are high.

16th August 2006, 06:22 PM	#11
American Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: CA Posts: 3,842	Originally Posted by CapelDodger Inevitably, since there are various constraints - water, nutrients, space and so on. One may also consider adaptive constraints, or rather selective advantage. Presumably most everything will become more robust to high CO2 levels (at the small cost of 99% of related things dying off somewhat because they don't like it).

20th August 2006, 02:46 PM	#12
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,744	Originally Posted by YoPopa Whether it's efficient or inefficient could easily be determined by a free market. I say could but that would require a free market which no longer exists where I live. Government mandates have seen to it that recycling is the only choice for towns in Massachusetts. It's inefficient just by examination. Turning trees into pulp takes a lot of energy, if you've ever inadvertantly walked into a tree or, heaven forfend, had one fall on you you'll see my point. Paper, not so much. There'd be more bang to the buck if you re-cycled paper and buried the equivalent in trees back at source. Hard to see how the free market could come up with that scheme, though. Quote: Landfill volume is not the issue in the US. I don't doubt it, I've seen pictures of the Grand Canyon and that alone, well, it's an impressive volume. Quote: There is more landfill volume available today than there was 15 or 20 years ago. Why is that? Depletion at quarries and mines? A new definition or formula? I'm genuinely intrigued. Quote: If the paper trade really liked post consumer pulp they would be willing to pay as much or more for it but they don't in many cases. Paper manufacture is highly integrated, so they buy (even if they produce) sources of pulp as well as sheet-pulp from pulpers. And they do buy used paper as a source. What they don't do is collect it door-to-door, they're not geared-up for that. They buy bulk, and their supply is generally short of demand without gumment-backed recycling schemes. With such schemes, it exceeds demand. With piecemeal schemes the market gyrates horribly. The industry will never recycle all paper because fibre-lengths are attrited. Robust tree-fibres, "fresh meat" as it's known in the system, will always be fed in. there's a Midnight Cowboy feel to the whole thing. Quote: Our small town in MA has to pay to have paper hauled away. We could easily bury it for a lot less money and a lot less expenditure of fossil fuels for the transportation. I should not have to mention the fossil fuel consumption because that is already in the equation and is part of the reason the costs of recycling are high. Are you sure you guys could bury it for less? How deep, and under where?
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

20th August 2006, 02:57 PM	#13
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,744	Originally Posted by American One may also consider adaptive constraints, or rather selective advantage. Presumably most everything will become more robust to high CO2 levels (at the small cost of 99% of related things dying off somewhat because they don't like it). There'll surely be an adaptive explosion after the Holocene Extinction, just as there has been after all the others. (Contrary to some reports, the Holocene Extinction is still going on.)
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

21st August 2006, 06:10 AM	#14
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by CapelDodger It's inefficient just by examination. Turning trees into pulp takes a lot of energy, if you've ever inadvertantly walked into a tree or, heaven forfend, had one fall on you you'll see my point. Paper, not so much. There'd be more bang to the buck if you re-cycled paper and buried the equivalent in trees back at source. Hard to see how the free market could come up with that scheme, though. "inefficient just by examination"? I'm not sure what that means but it sounds like you're saying that because it's obvious to you it must be true. It's not obvious to me and I don't believe that turning trees into pulp requires that much energy (or chemical processes) relative to that required to recycle paper. I know whereof I speak regarding the energy to harvest trees. I've heated my home for most of the last 25 years with wood that I cut, split, and dried on my own property. It's no big deal to do this with a chain saw, a pickup truck, and a splitting maul. I've also been a cabinetmaker for over 30 years. But I'm a rustic primitive when it comes to the harvest of pulp trees. The mechanical harvesters that they use today have made the harvesting and chipping of pulp extremely efficient. Quote: Why is that? Depletion at quarries and mines? A new definition or formula? I'm genuinely intrigued. The fact that there is more available landfill volume today than years past is no longer disputed by either side in the debate. There are fewer landfills but the new ones are much larger. The reasons are complicated by a host of factors from NIMBYism to government mandates but I think the simplest explanation is that waste disposal is now big business. Modern landfills are highly engineered affairs with plastic and clay liners and it's more cost effective to create them on a larger scale. Quote: Paper manufacture is highly integrated, so they buy (even if they produce) sources of pulp as well as sheet-pulp from pulpers. And they do buy used paper as a source. What they don't do is collect it door-to-door, they're not geared-up for that. They buy bulk, and their supply is generally short of demand without gumment-backed recycling schemes. With such schemes, it exceeds demand. With piecemeal schemes the market gyrates horribly. The point here is that recycling paper is not cost effective unless you have "gumment-backed recycling schemes". In fact it's not cost effective when you factor in the costs which have been now been hidden by the "gumment" mandates. These costs include all the energy to collect the widely distributed post consumer paper and transport it to the processors. The costs are hidden because they have been absorbed at the community level and are not passed on to the paper industry. Quote: The industry will never recycle all paper because fibre-lengths are attrited. Robust tree-fibres, "fresh meat" as it's known in the system, will always be fed in. there's a Midnight Cowboy feel to the whole thing. Fibre length is another argument in favor of virgin materials which are required for high quality product. Thanks for mentioning that. I don't know why you mention "Midnight Cowboy feel". Is it that you think "Cowboy" is an insult and you need to throw one in once in awhile? Quote: Are you sure you guys could bury it for less? How deep, and under where? Yes, I'm quite sure we could bury paper for less, not that paper needs to be buried deeply or at all. How much leachate is there from paper? IMHO 3 or 4 feet of paper might make a good landfill liner. I'm not saying that every community should bury their paper. If a community has a facility that will PAY them for their non-subsidized paper waste then they should have the choice to sell to that facility. Many other communities would benefit more from being able to bury the waste with the bonus that carbon is being sequestered. A very good explanation of why Recycling is a Waste of Good Waste.