停止人为气候变化,有必要停止提取石油和开始注入碳在地下?- 江南体育网页版- - - - -地球科学堆江南电子竞技平台栈交换 最近30从www.hoelymoley.com 2023 - 04 - 12 - t00:20:01z //www.hoelymoley.com/feeds/question/2753 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf //www.hoelymoley.com/q/2753 12 停止人为气候变化,有必要停止提取石油和开始注入碳在地下? 阿列克谢 //www.hoelymoley.com/users/1079 2014 - 11 - 09 - t10:23:57z 2020 - 04 - 05 - t03:41:34z < p >碳(C)究竟是常数。据我理解,没有找到所有碳在大气中或海洋的CO 2 < /订阅>或<子>有限公司存储在生物(包括人类在内的植物、动物、细菌、蘑菇,等等),或者在化石和化石燃料(煤、石油、天然气),或无机形式的石墨和钻石。这是正确的吗?它意味着停止人为气候变化的唯一方法,减少发行量有限公司<子> 2 < /订阅>大气中是停止开采化石燃料和开始转换CO 2 <子> < /订阅>从大气中石墨或钻石或某种形式的石油和泵回地下吗?< / p > < p >我有问了一个< a href = " //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/2755/ " >相关的问题关于地球碳分布< / >。< / p > //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/2753/-/2757 # 2757 14 回答在410年停止人为气候变化,有必要停止提取石油和开始注入碳在地下? 410年不见了 //www.hoelymoley.com/users/100 2014 - 11 - 09 - t11:57:03z 2014 - 12 - 18 - t07:04:15z < h3 > < / h3 > < p >总结大部分剩余库存,碳氢化合物(煤、天然气、石油)将不得不保持未燃尽的。在几乎所有情况下,这将意味着让他们在地下。我们已经有成熟的技术来防止新的人为排放的温室气江南登录网址app下载体排放,而且在大多数情况下,技术和经济障碍:解决剩下的问题是纯粹的政治。< / p > < h3 >让我们确保我们说的是同一件事< / h3 > < p >让我们先直接把我们的术语。最大的问题是< em > < / em >快速气候变化;我们可以做些什么,因为当前快速气候变化我们开始体验,是人为的,它是人类造成的。So, "climate change" here refers not to historic natural processes over thousands to millions of years, but the present anthropocentric-induced processes that are happening over decades. That is the most common usage of the phrase these days, but it still can be useful to state it explicitly once in a while so that we know we are discussing the same thing.

Stocks and flows

Climate change is a result of changes in the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Those stocks have increased a lot over the last 180 years or so, and are continuing to change, because we've messed about with the flows. In particular, we've increased the rate of emissions from sources, without increasing the rate of take-up of sinks.

The bathtub analogy: we've opened the bath taps further, so water's flowing in faster. But we haven't widened the drain, so the level of water in the bath is rising, and soon will overflow and flood the house. It's not the rate at which water enters the bath that's the problem in and of itself: it's the level of water in the bath, and that's rising quickly because the inflow is much faster than the outflow. Similarly, what matters for climate and climate change is the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the level of CO2 absorbed into the oceans.

Even if new net emissions went to zero this year (technically impossible without the collapse of human civilisation, which would rather defeat the whole exercise), we'd still see increasing heat content of the Earth over the next few years, as things move towards equilibrium, based on the current levels of greenhouse gases which represent a historic increase over the levels that prevailed over the last few thousand years during which human civilisation has developed.

So, to prevent further climate change, we have to balance out sources and sinks. So we can do either, or a combination, of two things: we can decrease the rate of emissions from sources down to the level where existing sinks can absorb them; and we can increase the rate at which sinks absorb.

Reducing sources

Stopping burning fossil fuels is the easiest and simplest way to decrease the rate of emissions. To the best of my knowledge, we now have alternatives for almost all of the major emissions sources, with the possible exception of methane emissions from livestock farming. Some are very well-established, like hydro and onshore wind electricity generation. Some are maturing quickly, like PV, offshore wind. Some are successful in the lab, and ready to move to commercial-scale prototypes, such as decarbonised production of steel, clinker, and liquid hydrocarbons.

Increasing sinks

Carbon sequestration is one way to increase the sinks. It's been trialled at small scale, and remains problematic. The way that's been done so far is to pump the carbon dioxide underground. At the moment, no business has been willing to accept the open-ended liability that is posed by the risk of leakage. So at the moment, the market is saying that this is not a viable technology. That might change. It's also worth noting that at the moment, the market also wants to use CO2 sequestration as a means of extracting even more oil (Enhanced Oil Recovery, EOR), which just makes the whole problem worse.

One way that is fast, effective and affordable is increasing the amount of carbon in biomass. Reforestation and afforestation are two ways to do this, and would help reverse a lot of the human-caused loss of forest ecosystems, if done well.

//www.hoelymoley.com/questions/2753/-/2794 # 2794 10 答案由fede_luppi停止人为气候变化,有必要停止提取石油和开始注入碳在地下? fede_luppi //www.hoelymoley.com/users/1125 2014 - 11 - 13 - t21:28:38z 2014 - 12 - 18 - t07:02:44z < p >不,我们不需要停止开采石油,我们需要停止燃烧石油,以及其他化石燃料,因为燃烧固体C转化为气态的C,从而上升到大气层,增加地球变暖的温室气体。< / p > < p >不,我们不需要把现有的CO 2 <子> < /订阅>成钻石。植物是很好的占用有限公司<子> 2 < /订阅>从大气中,和存储C作为木材,后来进入土壤植物凋落物,它可以存储长期(超过数百万年甚至可能成为钻石,石油或煤炭!)。有C损失有限公司<子> 2 < /订阅>到大气中,通过植物或土壤呼吸,但这是一个广泛的话题。更准确地说,陆生植物和海洋删除每年超过一半的CO 2 <子> < /订阅>我们排放到大气中,是免费的。< / p > //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/2753/-/19555 # 19555 1 答案由Tms91停止人为气候变化,有必要停止提取石油和开始注入碳在地下? Tms91 //www.hoelymoley.com/users/20247 2020 - 04 - 04 - t17:13:03z 2020 - 04 - 05 - t03:41:34z 不久< p > <强>:< /强> < / p > < p >是的,阻止开采化石燃料深层的土壤和开始注入碳土壤是一个可行的和相对简单的解决方案来阻止全球变暖。< / p > < p > < >强完全解释:< /强> < / p > < p >通过假设人为全球变暖是由于大气中温室气体浓度的上升(假设主要有限公司<子> 2 < /订阅>),< br >为了阻止它,需要重置它从它的实际价值(大约在2020年2月415 ppm)的工业革命之前(大约250 ppm)。< / p > < p >这导致温室气体排放相关的人为活动不仅必须停止,但它有消极的,为了消除大气中的温室气体的过量。< / p > < p >鉴于我们可以确定< a href = " //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/19450/how-do-the-slow-and-fast-carbon-cycles-influence-climate-change/19554 # 19554 " > 8大地球上碳水库和7大碳通量< / >在这些水库中,< br >每一个活动,有助于重新分配流量,这样,在全球范围内,大气中的碳排干,转移到另一个水库在大气中温室气体浓度达到250 ppm,这是一个潜在的解决全球变暖。< / p >
Baidu
map