Int'l. Study: IPCC Doesn’t Account for 1 Billion Tons of CO2 Absorbed Annually… by Cement

[rangerrebew]

Int'l. Study: IPCC Doesn’t Account for 1 Billion Tons of CO2 Absorbed Annually… by Cement

 (CNSNews.com) – Cement, the ubiquitous material used to build roads, buildings and other infrastructure, absorbs about one billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, according to a new study [1] published Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

But concrete carbonation [2] is “not currently considered in emissions inventories” kept by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [3] (IPCC), according to the study’s co-authors, an international team of researchers led by Professor Dabo Guan [4] of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia [5].

The study found that cement’s natural carbonation process not only offsets the fossil fuel emissions released during its production, it also “represents a large and growing net sink of CO2” that has not been taken into account by the IPCC.


Source URL: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/study-ipcc-doesnt-account-1-billion-tons-co2-absorbed-annually

[Suppressed]

Yes, exposed concrete takes CO₂ out of the atmosphere.  But the GCMs are based on absolute concentrations in the atmosphere, and adjustments to reductions in emissions would be based on changes in concrete exposure.

[thackney]

So we can save the planet by paving it?

[Oceander]

So we can save the planet by paving it?

[Free Vulcan]

So we can save the planet by paving it?

Can we start with the Middle East?

[LateForLunch]

Yes, exposed concrete takes CO₂ out of the atmosphere.  But the GCMs are based on absolute concentrations in the atmosphere, and adjustments to reductions in emissions would be based on changes in concrete exposure.

Since natural carbon emissions are generally at least ten to twenty time greater than human contributions I'm wondering why that information is not generally known or considered relevant to discussions of carbon emissions in general?

[Suppressed]

Since natural carbon emissions are generally at least ten to twenty time greater than human contributions I'm wondering why that information is not generally known or considered relevant to discussions of carbon emissions in general?

Because it's not generally relevant, as there's little we can do to reduce the natural contributions to offset the large load of CO₂ humans are adding.  The system was in a general equilibrium, with a constant atmospheric CO₂ concentration for quite some time until we began pumping lots in above the natural uptake rate.  While the increased concrete might pulls some out, it's only a few percent of all we are spewing.

[Suppressed]

So we can save the planet by paving it?

Yes.

Note, also, that strip mining prevents forest fires.

[Free Vulcan]

Because it's not generally relevant, as there's little we can do to reduce the natural contributions to offset the large load of CO₂ humans are adding.  The system was in a general equilibrium, with a constant atmospheric CO₂ concentration for quite some time until we began pumping lots in above the natural uptake rate.  While the increased concrete might pulls some out, it's only a few percent of all we are spewing.

But the amount we are producing is still fraction of a fraction. It's minuscule to the whole. And the system maintains equilibrium by faster plant growth, among other things, if there's even a need to.

Assuming CO2 can do what it says it can do. Mostly it's just flat earth theory.

[Just_Victor]

Yes.

Note, also, that strip mining prevents forest fires.

 

[Suppressed]

But the amount we are producing is still fraction of a fraction. It's minuscule to the whole.

It's a significant portion.  There are various ways to see how your analysis falls down.

First of all, the natural system recovers all the CO₂ it generates.  Therefore, we could say that the natural net contribution is zero.   Therefore, the human contribution is infinitely larger than the natural contribution, even given this bit of concrete-enabled sequestration.

Secondly, look at it like a budget.  The natural contribution is all "paid for".  The anthropogenic contribution is unfunded spending.

Try this... Assume our nation has a budget of $4 trillion, and we somehow have that budget balanced (hey, it's hypothetical...I know we don't do as well as nature!).  If Obama/Democrats came out and announced that they were just going to add $150,000,000,000 of spending without generating any corresponding revenue (or perhaps $5 billion [concrete effect]), would you describe that as "miniscule"?  Really?  That's the proportions we're talking about (conservatively).

And the system maintains equilibrium by faster plant growth, among other things, if there's even a need to.

The problem isn't the amount; the real issue is the rate.  The flux far exceeds the response rate. 

We're taking accumulations of millions of years of carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere practically overnight (in geologic terms).  The famous Mauna Loa graph illustrates that plant growth isn't keeping up.

Assuming CO2 can do what it says it can do. Mostly it's just flat earth theory.

While it might not be the huge nightmare scenario some have pushed, it's pretty well backed by hundreds of millions of years of geological/geochemical data.  Times in the past with high CO₂ were warmer.  When carbon was sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, the temperature dropped.  Now we are releasing it again.

Of course, the ocean will soak up some of the effects, by acidifying.  But it's ludicrous to think this rapid forcing will have no effect.

[LateForLunch]

It's a significant portion.  There are various ways to see how your analysis falls down.

First of all, the natural system recovers all the CO₂ it generates.  Therefore, we could say that the natural net contribution is zero.   Therefore, the human contribution is infinitely larger than the natural contribution, even given this bit of concrete-enabled sequestration.

Secondly, look at it like a budget.  The natural contribution is all "paid for".  The anthropogenic contribution is unfunded spending.

Try this... Assume our nation has a budget of $4 trillion, and we somehow have that budget balanced (hey, it's hypothetical...I know we don't do as well as nature!).  If Obama/Democrats came out and announced that they were just going to add $150,000,000,000 of spending without generating any corresponding revenue (or perhaps $5 billion [concrete effect]), would you describe that as "miniscule"?  Really?  That's the proportions we're talking about (conservatively).

The problem isn't the amount; the real issue is the rate.  The flux far exceeds the response rate. 

We're taking accumulations of millions of years of carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere practically overnight (in geologic terms).  The famous Mauna Loa graph illustrates that plant growth isn't keeping up.

While it might not be the huge nightmare scenario some have pushed, it's pretty well backed by hundreds of millions of years of geological/geochemical data.  Times in the past with high CO₂ were warmer.  When carbon was sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, the temperature dropped.  Now we are releasing it again.

Of course, the ocean will soak up some of the effects, by acidifying.  But it's ludicrous to think this rapid forcing will have no effect.

The horse will not rise, no matter how well-flogged. Most of the evidence points strongly to rises in CO2 being an effect, rather than a cause of warming.

And not only that, the IPCC that you and others so religiously quote as definitive is once again "adjusting" its data. That's not kosher. Moving the goal posts is rude.

I would also note that you state opinions as facts. You refer to human contributions to total CO2 as "significant" but show no strong evidence (other than disjointed statistical numbers referring to a previously unsubstantiated claim of carbon forcing being imperative). The claims remain without central theses supported. Significant HOW??? Since variations in natural output often (usually) offset human contributions (a single large volcano contributes more CO2 than ten years of human contributions) the term "significant" is seemingly entirely subjective, yet you use it like it is a technical term that does not even warrant qualification or clarification relative to the central point(s).

Also you state that carbon forcing is an absolute given as a principle when it's far from that. There are numerous studies and opinions expressed by experts in Physical geographical science which disputes the notion that carbon forcing is a real phenomenon which directly effects atmospheric black body radiation retention mediation.

I also note that you use a lot of pejorative terms that are really unnecessary and hostile such as "ludicrous" and were dismissive of the central idea of a previous poster's comment even though you did not effectively refute it. This makes you look defensive and (forgive me) dishonest.

[Free Vulcan]

It's a significant portion.  There are various ways to see how your analysis falls down.

First of all, the natural system recovers all the CO₂ it generates.  Therefore, we could say that the natural net contribution is zero.   Therefore, the human contribution is infinitely larger than the natural contribution, even given this bit of concrete-enabled sequestration.

Secondly, look at it like a budget.  The natural contribution is all "paid for".  The anthropogenic contribution is unfunded spending.

Try this... Assume our nation has a budget of $4 trillion, and we somehow have that budget balanced (hey, it's hypothetical...I know we don't do as well as nature!).  If Obama/Democrats came out and announced that they were just going to add $150,000,000,000 of spending without generating any corresponding revenue (or perhaps $5 billion [concrete effect]), would you describe that as "miniscule"?  Really?  That's the proportions we're talking about (conservatively).

The problem isn't the amount; the real issue is the rate.  The flux far exceeds the response rate. 

We're taking accumulations of millions of years of carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere practically overnight (in geologic terms).  The famous Mauna Loa graph illustrates that plant growth isn't keeping up.

While it might not be the huge nightmare scenario some have pushed, it's pretty well backed by hundreds of millions of years of geological/geochemical data.  Times in the past with high CO₂ were warmer.  When carbon was sequestered during the Carboniferous Period, the temperature dropped.  Now we are releasing it again.

Of course, the ocean will soak up some of the effects, by acidifying.  But it's ludicrous to think this rapid forcing will have no effect.

I'm not sure the correlation is that solid. The problem with the forcing theory is that it assumes the heat all goes in one direction. It goes in all directions, including outer space, helping with equilibrium. As I said, the whole CO2 forcing thing is a bit of flat earth theory.

[Suppressed]

The horse will not rise, no matter how well-flogged. Most of the evidence points strongly to rises in CO2 being an effect, rather than a cause of warming.

Please cite for me the case where CO₂ has been added to the atmosphere as rapidly as we are doing.  Sure, you can go back to the Permian or whatever, but what was the result?  Rapid warming (and mass extinction)!

Look at La Chatelier's principle as an illustration.  When you press on a system in equilibrium, the equilibrium point moves.  Add heat, and you'll get higher CO₂ concentrations.  But add CO₂, and the equilibrium results in a higher temperature.

In recent geologic times, we've had perturbations in temperature which has resulted in CO₂ increases that followed.  Of course they follow, as they can't predict the change!  But if CO₂ concentrations increase, we should expect the temperature to follow.

And not only that, the IPCC that you and others so religiously quote as definitive is once again "adjusting" its data. That's not kosher. Moving the goal posts is rude.

Where have I quoted the IPCC?  Especially "religiously".  Lying about me is not kosher and is rude.

I would also note that you state opinions as facts. You refer to human contributions to total CO2 as "significant" but show no strong evidence (other than disjointed statistical numbers referring to a previously unsubstantiated claim of carbon forcing being imperative). The claims remain without central theses supported. Significant HOW???

The Mauna Loa graph shows increases occurring.  Are you claiming that the annual increase in CO2 is wholly from natural sources?!?!

If you aren't, then it's obviously a significant factor in the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.  That's fact, not opinion.

Since variations in natural output often (usually) offset human contributions (a single large volcano contributes more CO2 than ten years of human contributions) the term "significant" is seemingly entirely subjective, yet you use it like it is a technical term that does not even warrant qualification or clarification relative to the central point(s).

I'm going to ask you for a citation of that spurious claim about volcanic contributions (yes, you are not being fact based, citing that).  If a supervolcano contributes that much, then it's a rare enough event that it's far less than the bulk contributions from humans over time.  On average, volcanoes contribute far less than humans. 

Also you state that carbon forcing is an absolute given as a principle when it's far from that.

Let's see.  That's your opinion, not fact.

I also note that you use a lot of pejorative terms that are really unnecessary and hostile such as "ludicrous"

Please cite this "lot of" "pejorative and hostile" terms that I used unnecessarily. 

Seriously, go ahead and list that "lot of" you are claiming.

Frankly, you make accusations about me that are unfounded, and I find that more hostile than anything I wrote. 

... and were dismissive of the central idea of a previous poster's comment even though you did not effectively refute it. This makes you look defensive and (forgive me) dishonest.

If you think that "infinitely larger" is "miniscule", then I don't know what I can do to explain it any clearer.

Try this...

100% of the contribution in excess of equilibrium is caused by humans, and that amount is several billion tons that would not otherwise be there.  That amount is several percent of the annual amount that is emitted and otherwise reabsorbed by natural system, resulting in a very measurable and statistically significant increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.  Many people would find it difficult to stretch a description of such a contribution as "miniscule".

[Suppressed]

I'm not sure the correlation is that solid. The problem with the forcing theory is that it assumes the heat all goes in one direction. It goes in all directions, including outer space, helping with equilibrium. As I said, the whole CO2 forcing thing is a bit of flat earth theory.

@Free Vulcan, I'm not sure I follow your complaint with it.  Would you mind clarifying?

[LateForLunch]

Please cite for me the case where CO₂ has been added to the atmosphere as rapidly as we are doing.  Sure, you can go back to the Permian or whatever, but what was the result?  Rapid warming (and mass extinction)!

Look at La Chatelier's principle as an illustration.  When you press on a system in equilibrium, the equilibrium point moves.  Add heat, and you'll get higher CO₂ concentrations.  But add CO₂, and the equilibrium results in a higher temperature.

In recent geologic times, we've had perturbations in temperature which has resulted in CO₂ increases that followed.  Of course they follow, as they can't predict the change!  But if CO₂ concentrations increase, we should expect the temperature to follow.

Where have I quoted the IPCC?  Especially "religiously".  Lying about me is not kosher and is rude.

The Mauna Loa graph shows increases occurring.  Are you claiming that the annual increase in CO2 is wholly from natural sources?!?!

If you aren't, then it's obviously a significant factor in the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.  That's fact, not opinion.


I'm going to ask you for a citation of that spurious claim about volcanic contributions (yes, you are not being fact based, citing that).  If a supervolcano contributes that much, then it's a rare enough event that it's far less than the bulk contributions from humans over time.  On average, volcanoes contribute far less than humans. 


Let's see.  That's your opinion, not fact.

Please cite this "lot of" "pejorative and hostile" terms that I used unnecessarily. 

Seriously, go ahead and list that "lot of" you are claiming.

Frankly, you make accusations about me that are unfounded, and I find that more hostile than anything I wrote. 

If you think that "infinitely larger" is "miniscule", then I don't know what I can do to explain it any clearer.

Try this...

100% of the contribution in excess of equilibrium is caused by humans, and that amount is several billion tons that would not otherwise be there.  That amount is several percent of the annual amount that is emitted and otherwise reabsorbed by natural system, resulting in a very measurable and statistically significant increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.  Many people would find it difficult to stretch a description of such a contribution as "miniscule".

Although I can follow your ramblings, know why you are wrong, could engage and defeat you point-by-point, most of the people reading here likely haven't had the time nor the inclination to study these matters sufficiently to follow along readily. I am not posting here for your benefit or mine, but primarily for theirs. So I decline your invitation to "debate" intricate technical absurdities, regardless of the excruciatingly-rescripted, effusive tangential acrobatics you perform, believing that somehow they prove a point by their sheer magnitude and depth of confusion. 

Clearly you are hypnotized by jargon and "credentialism" which is Suppressing your own ability to be connected to Reality. I sense that there is nothing that I or anyone else could possibly say or offer in refutation that would convince you to change your mind because for each counterpoint offered, you do not ADDRESS THE CENTRAL POINT but launch into another tangent.

I am reminded of the scientists who worked out every detail of the Mars mission in the most exquisite technical detail, except that they forgot to convert miles to kilometers!!! I don't suppose you worked on that mission did you, sieur?

You are lost in endless rehashing of technical minutiae which avoids the central absurdity contained in the belief that the 0.02% (or much less!) of the inert trace gas CO2 which human beings contribute to the total atmosphere can somehow dominate over the effects of the total energy contributed by all of the other natural elements of the geophysical system which mediates average climatic temperature.

 I listed those natural elements above in my initial post and you rudely dismissed ALL OF THAT without refuting ANY of the central information (which was wise because it was all factual)!!! If you are so sure it is wrong THEN POST THE REFUTING FACTS (I extracted the quoted volcano information from Wikipedia for instance, so refute THEM if you like). It's all there for you to see for yourself. I am not your servant so I will not retrieve the information for you. It is after all YOU sir, who insists that I am mistaken, and therefore the onus is rightfully on YOU to provide refuting facts, not mine to assist you.

There is no way in a gross physical sense of total energy in a physical geographical system, that a MINUSCULE fractional amount of energy (likely in thousandths of a percent) can dominate over the effects of the other 99.999 % of the total energy. You propose that a spit-wad hurled at a freight train  will derail it.

That you and others who try to distract with endless circumambulations around that point demonstrate that you are either deliberately trying to obfuscate with obscure technical digressions (that you either refuse or are unable to consolidate into meaningful synthesis of plain speaking) or else have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the most elementary basics of large geophysical systems. I am inclined to believe it is the former since you seem to have some intellect. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with convoluted, overly-technical, digressive BS,eh?

 An effective but hardly original stratagem.   

Now, this is where most AGW fanatics whose invitation to engage in endless wild goose chases away from glaringly obvious defects in their basic premises has been declined usually pull out "credentials" and hurl self-pitying, infantile vituperations condemning the one(s) who disagree with them as inferior intellectually or morally and/or accuse them of being "purchased" by oil companies and other nefarious persons who want to destroy the world by denying AGW's horrible Earth destroying danger to the entire world.

I will state this a second time, a refusal to speak in plain terms is evidence that you are either unable or unwilling to make any sort of comprehensive refutation of any of the BASIC fundamental points I or any other posters have raised, but instead digress into endless, largely meaningless tangential excursions into grotesque, baroque jargon-enamored nonsense.

Speak plainly or stop posting. Nobody here is in any mood to play along with your attempt to shift the discussion to endless pointless, meandering verbosity.

Hitting my stopwatch and awaiting your substantive response NOW...and do try to keep it under 1000 words this time if you are capable of that.*

* An unwillingness or inability of people to speak in plain terms without a lot of technical jargon is a red flag to most normal people. Pretend that you are speaking to a board of directors this time, and that they expect you to speak in plain terms and to SUMMARIZE technical arguments so that non-technical people in the room can understand your central points. Failure or refusal to do that by the way, in board rooms and political seats of power, generally results in the principle being told that their services are no longer needed.

[DB]

100% of the contribution in excess of equilibrium is caused by humans, and that amount is several billion tons that would not otherwise be there.  That amount is several percent of the annual amount that is emitted and otherwise reabsorbed by natural system, resulting in a very measurable and statistically significant increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.  Many people would find it difficult to stretch a description of such a contribution as "miniscule".

So in summary, since we add "unnatural" CO2 to the system, even if very small compared to nature, there must be some imbalance causing bad things. Very scientific... Funny how virtually every prediction based on added CO2 has failed. We are in an ice age right now, but in an interglacial period were glaciers retreat... Yet some think they shouldn't be... Very strange...

[Smokin Joe]

Can we start with the Middle East?

Glass doesn't count. Only concrete.

[Smokin Joe]

So in summary, since we add "unnatural" CO2 to the system, even if very small compared to nature, there must be some imbalance causing bad things. Very scientific... Funny how virtually every prediction based on added CO2 has failed. We are in an ice age right now, but in an interglacial period were glaciers retreat... Yet some think they shouldn't be... Very strange...

Sorry, but I live in North Dakota. Warm weather here is not a "bad thing" but something to be cherished. The idea that tomatoes planted in the spring (here, anyway) can ripen on the vine without extraordinary measures taken to prevent their freezing is a joy!
So, amidst all this argument about whether CO2 is a forcing agent, or a result of a climate cycle related to other factors, I must ask:

Just what is the "right" temperature? If you say the current one, well, balderdash!

Only because so many people have so much money tied up in beachfront real estate and insuring it would there be an arbitrary "right" temperature. It's pretty obvious that while humans can survive and even flourish in a wide range of climates, they tend to do pretty well in warmer periods than colder ones (than at present).
 
12000 years ago where I sit was the base of a mile thick sheet of ice. If that comes back, it will wreak havoc on property values around here. The beach was a bit farther offshore than where it is now. One thing not normal in nature is straight line stability. Everything changes, and we adapt or we don't. Divesting ourselves of the available resources to cope with any problems that may arise in the unproven attempt to prevent change is folly, I don't care what else you believe.

[LateForLunch]

@Free Vulcan, I'm not sure I follow your complaint with it.  Would you mind clarifying?

I find that to be intensely ironic. That the poster who by far posts with the least clarity and the utmost obscurity on this thread is asking another poster to "clarify" something. Exquisite. Like something taken directly from the novel Catch-22.

[DB]

Sorry, but I live in North Dakota. Warm weather here is not a "bad thing" but something to be cherished. The idea that tomatoes planted in the spring (here, anyway) can ripen on the vine without extraordinary measures taken to prevent their freezing is a joy!
So, amidst all this argument about whether CO2 is a forcing agent, or a result of a climate cycle related to other factors, I must ask:

Just what is the "right" temperature? If you say the current one, well, balderdash!

Only because so many people have so much money tied up in beachfront real estate and insuring it would there be an arbitrary "right" temperature. It's pretty obvious that while humans can survive and even flourish in a wide range of climates, they tend to do pretty well in warmer periods than colder ones (than at present).
 
12000 years ago where I sit was the base of a mile thick sheet of ice. If that comes back, it will wreak havoc on property values around here. The beach was a bit farther offshore than where it is now. One thing not normal in nature is straight line stability. Everything changes, and we adapt or we don't. Divesting ourselves of the available resources to cope with any problems that may arise in the unproven attempt to prevent change is folly, I don't care what else you believe.

Won't get any argument from me... The climate has gone through continuous change for millions of years yet now it is supposed to just magically stop changing and any deviation from now has to be "man made"... Because, well, it must be...

[Smokin Joe]

Won't get any argument from me... The climate has gone through continuous change for millions of years yet now it is supposed to just magically stop changing and any deviation from now has to be "man made"... Because, well, it must be...

One of the great fallacies of the EnvironMental movement is that it seeks to preserve naturally dynamic systems in stasis. It repeatedly fails at such, and blames human activity for that failure, which is even more ludicrous. Short of some real planet wrecking demonstration of technology (most of which would turn the Earth into an ice ball), humans aren't capable of having a lasting effect on the climate, any more than the dinosaurs were.

[DB]

One of the great fallacies of the EnvironMental movement is that it seeks to preserve naturally dynamic systems in stasis. It repeatedly fails at such, and blames human activity for that failure, which is even more ludicrous. Short of some real planet wrecking demonstration of technology (most of which would turn the Earth into an ice ball), humans aren't capable of having a lasting effect on the climate, any more than the dinosaurs were.

Another fallacy is that nature is some sort of loving embracing mother that we should all long to return to. Nature is brutal where survival of the fittest is the primary rule. Where justice, feelings and intent have no meaning whatsoever. In short you are food. What makes us different is the ability rise above the previous natural order of things.

[driftdiver]

We don't add  co2, we simply move it around.   

[driftdiver]

One of the great fallacies of the EnvironMental movement is that it seeks to preserve naturally dynamic systems in stasis. It repeatedly fails at such, and blames human activity for that failure, which is even more ludicrous. Short of some real planet wrecking demonstration of technology (most of which would turn the Earth into an ice ball), humans aren't capable of having a lasting effect on the climate, any more than the dinosaurs were.

@Smokin Joe

Facts and science don't matter.   It's not out reality it's about controlling people and their money.