编辑-地球科学江南体育网页版堆栈交换江南电子竞技平台

你不是登录。你的编辑将被放置在一个队列,直到同行评议。

我们欢迎编辑,使读者更容易理解和更有价值。因为社区成员审查编辑,请尽量使文章更好比你怎么发现,例如,通过修正语法或添加额外的资源和超链接。

牧师

为什么不地球吸收碳排放?

如果我们看一下碳循环,我们看到,人为碳排放只占一小部分{有限公司}_2 \文本美元排放。

然而,我们看到一个稳步上升的大气{有限公司}_2 \文本美元水平。

岂不是逻辑假设地球会适应这种增加,如通过增加植物生长和为什么不这样?

回答

假设确实是合乎逻辑的和正确的,增加植物生长实际上是发生(这种影响称为[\ ce} {CO2施肥美元][1])。正如你所暗示的那样,地球将适应流入的增加\ ce{二氧化碳},美元再次找到平衡。可能丢失在你的推理,是大气\ ce}{二氧化碳浓度美元在新的稳定状态不会一样的工业化前的稳态浓度。大气是一个水库\ ce{二氧化碳}$美元。其来源(火山,植物的呼吸作用,分解,化石燃料的燃烧,等等)和水槽(photosintesys、海洋吸收、硅酸盐风化、等等)。为了简化系统用浴缸让我们做一个类比。让我们想象一个浴缸和一个非常强大的水龙头,水槽。现在让我们开始打开水龙头,直到沉就被传入水和浴管的水平开始上升。随着水平的上升,底部的水压力也会增加,因此,更多的水将匆匆忙忙的水槽。最终将槽水槽与水,水位稳定。 At this point we have reached steady state. If we open the faucet a bit more, the water level will rise again, up to a point where the bottom pressure allows the sink to catch up and a new steady state is reached, but this time **at a higher water level**. Also, note that after we increase the inflow of water, it takes some time to reach the new steady state, and that time depends on the sizes of sources and sinks relative to the reservoir. In our example, if the same faucet and sink were in an Olympic swimming pool instead of a bath tub, the time would have been much larger. Going back to Earth, the atmospheric $\ce{CO2}$ concentration was pretty much as steady state before the industrial revolution (if we consider ~1000 years time scales). Then, with the industrial revolution we increased the inflow of $\ce{CO2}$ into the atmospheric reservoir. As a consequence, the ocean and erosion increased their $\ce{CO2}$ intake, and plats increased their photosynthesis rate. In that way Earth, as you correctly assumed is working its way back to a new equilibrium. However, to reach that equilibrium takes time, and once we reach it, the atmospheric $\ce{CO2}$ will be higher than the pre-industrial levels, and that will in turn lead to a stronger greenhouse effect, higher temperatures, and climate change. It is also important to note, that the extra inflow of $\ce{CO2}$ didn't just increase at one point and stopped (like our faucet). It is constantly increasing to higher and higher levels of $\ce{CO2}$ production, making even harder for natural systems to bring Earth to a new equilibrium. The first figure in the [Wikipedia article you linked][2] shows this neatly: [![enter image description here][3]][3] We can see here in white numbers the most significant pre-industrial sources and sinks (at ~1000 years time scales). We can see that humans produce 9 Gigatons of carbon per year (GtC/yr), due to that extra inflow, photosynthesis is taking 3 GtC/yr more than before, and the ocean is taking an extra 2 GtC/yr as well. However, that is not enough to counteract the 9 GtC/yr we produce, and that is increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at 4 GtC/yr. This means the level in the atmospheric "bath tub" is still rising. If we were to keep those 9 GtC/yr we produce stable (i.e. not increasing production in the future). The concentration of $\ce{CO2}$ in the atmosphere will rise to a level high enough that the sinks will match the sources, for example with plants taking 5 GtC/yr and the ocean 4 GtC/yr, that would nicely balance the production. But that new equilibrium atmospheric $\ce{CO2}$ concentration would be high enough to rise Earth's temperature several degrees and force a whole reorganization of the Earth's climates. Finally, we have to say that some of these $\ce{CO2}$ intakes, like the oceanic one, don't come for free, and have their own nasty consequences, like ocean acidification. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R6lRW.png

编辑总结

取消

1

\ begingroup美元有用的类比,但我不确定我同意你的观点接近尾声。我认为所有的二氧化碳浓度我见过需要一个稳定的场景减少在发射率。没有保证水槽可以赶上9 GtC /年不断排放,也不是不合理的土地下沉会削弱和,也许,甚至成为一个来源。可能没有新的平衡大气中的二氧化碳浓度排放速度。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -Deditos
2019年3月28日,在十一17
\ begingroup美元 @Deditos我理解那些稳定的场景是那些限制全球变暖(例如在+ 2°C)。但如果温度上升,水槽最终会赶上。在长时间尺度硅酸盐风化是最主要的一个水槽,和温度成正比。因此,如果气温上升足够它甚至会赶上9 GtC /年(也将暴露更多的岩石由于冰层融化)。有证据表明,高\ ce{二氧化碳}&美元high_temperature平衡存在于过去。否则,GtC 9 /年将我们击溃失控的温室效应,我不认为是这样。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -卡米洛·Rada
2019年3月28日,十六36
\ begingroup美元我想更多关于二氧化碳稳定在任意级别,而不是变暖稳定一些的目标。但更重要的是,我在想10 ^ 3美元到10 ^ 4美元年过程和忘记10 ^ 6美元一年时间尺度。它在你的回答可能值得一提的时间表。在实践中,不9 GtC /年排气排放水库很快(如5000年)之前有时间达到平衡呢? \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -Deditos
2019年3月28日23:05

添加一个评论 |

正确的小错误或错误
澄清的意思,而不更改它
添加相关资源或链接
总是尊重作者的意图
不使用编辑与作者回复

创建代码用引号”或式子~篱笆
' ' '
像这样
' ' '
添加语言标识符来突出显示的代码
”“python
def函数(foo):
打印(foo)
' ' '
把段落之间的回报
在结束linebreak添加2个空间
_italic_或* *的* *
报价将>开始的
做链接(尽量使用https)
< https://example.com >
(例子)(https://example.com)
< a href = " https://example.com " > < / >示例
MathJax方程罪\ \ ^ 2θ美元

格式帮助»
回答帮助»

MathJax帮助»