Global Warming

[KilljoyKlown]

I didn't know that screw us what about the species that would go extinct. ugh..

As far as Earth is concerned, no big deal, just business as usual. Every thing dies whether it's an individual or a species. After a mass extinction it's the few survivors that will have real problems and I think humans will be right there suffering like never before. Life's a real bitch when day to day survival is at the top of everyone's list of things to do.

 

[chimpkin]

Trees die, decay, and that CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere!

Not necessarily, certainly not all of said tree has to go back into the atmosphere. It certainly will if you burn it.

But if you allow it to compost into dirt, well, that's an entirely different matter.

Something else? continuous no-till agriculture has doubled the organic matter in the top 2 inches of a test plot since it was started in 1962.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/pdf/0510.pdf

So, tilling=BAD. No-till=GOOD.

A USDA factsheet talks about how leaving the soil untilled leaves bacteria undisturbed, and may allow even more carbon storage in soils than previously thought:
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/highlights/2006_no4.pdf

I...think we ought to really be intensively farming edible seaweeds...because every little bit helps, no?
Large-scale plant aquaculture can help feed us and absorb some of that nasty carbon in the oceans...we could grow said seaweed as a green manure as well, if we could find one that wouldn't salinate the soil we put it in.

 

[livingin360]

Not necessarily, certainly not all of said tree has to go back into the atmosphere. It certainly will if you burn it.

But if you allow it to compost into dirt, well, that's an entirely different matter.

Something else? continuous no-till agriculture has doubled the organic matter in the top 2 inches of a test plot since it was started in 1962.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/pdf/0510.pdf

So, tilling=BAD. No-till=GOOD.

A USDA factsheet talks about how leaving the soil untilled leaves bacteria undisturbed, and may allow even more carbon storage in soils than previously thought:
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/highlights/2006_no4.pdf

I...think we ought to really be intensively farming edible seaweeds...because every little bit helps, no?
Large-scale plant aquaculture can help feed us and absorb some of that nasty carbon in the oceans...we could grow said seaweed as a green manure as well, if we could find one that wouldn't salinate the soil we put it in.

How could we massively plant and harvest seaweed though without destroying the oceans habitat? That's like saying we can grow crops in a forest and leave the wildlife undisturbed. Maybe the answer is not to harvest the crop or collect it at the shores

 

[Trippy]

What about shell fish and corals and diatoms and anything else that uses calcium in their survival strategy? Calcium dissolves in acidic water. Anyway if that's not bad enough warmer oceans have less O2 dissolved in it. Sounds like mass extinction in the oceans and that can't be good for us anyway you look at it.

It requires temperatures in excess of 50-60°C (122-140°F) to reduce DO down below 2ppm.

I think if the oceans get that hot, we'll have other things to worry about.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

It requires temperatures in excess of 50-60°C (122-140°F) to reduce DO down below 2ppm.

I think if the oceans get that hot, we'll have other things to worry about.

True, but the so called dead zones in the ocean are growing bigger every year. The main reason for those zones is low levels of O2. The scientists don't have a very good handle on the cause yet, but increase temp was cited as a contributing factor.

 

[Trippy]

True, but the so called dead zones in the ocean are growing bigger every year. The main reason for those zones is low levels of O2. The scientists don't have a very good handle on the cause yet, but increase temp was cited as a contributing factor.

I've done the calculation (I just don't recall the result) it's one of those things that is fixed by the laws of physics.

AFAIK the 'dead zones' are eutrophication caused by nutrient runoff from a range of sources - poor agricultural practices, poor effluent disposal practices (including human), or things like increased carbon influx (from things like algal blooms).

Increased temperature is not in and of itself a credible reason for deadzones, however, when combined with things like increased nutrient load, and increased iron from terrigenous sediments, then it has the potential to cause an algal bloom, which can, as a follow on effect cause the low levels of DO that are being observed (long story short, the carbonaceous material consumes oxygen as it is oxidized both chemically and biologically).

 

[chimpkin]

How could we massively plant and harvest seaweed though without destroying the oceans habitat? That's like saying we can grow crops in a forest and leave the wildlife undisturbed. Maybe the answer is not to harvest the crop or collect it at the shores

Actually-that depends on the crop!
A lot of fruit trees are understory trees-they do better when planted under other trees...People are finding a lot of tropical fruits do better when they're not planted in monoculture, but intermixed into a natural forest...I seem to remember a short documentary on how cocoa and coffee trees love being grown like this...

You can't leave the fish undisturbed...but you won't necessarily have to have a high fish kill rate for seaweed aquaculture, either.
We are harvesting most fish to extinction...and the oceans have a lot more area than the land does...so I'm not taking it back. Nope.

AFAIK the 'dead zones' are eutrophication caused by nutrient runoff from a range of sources - poor agricultural practices, poor effluent disposal practices (including human), or things like increased carbon influx (from things like algal blooms).

Mmhhmm...so grow seaweed where you have effluvient outflow and if the seaweed comes out too contaminated to eat, use it as compost.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I've done the calculation (I just don't recall the result) it's one of those things that is fixed by the laws of physics.

AFAIK the 'dead zones' are eutrophication caused by nutrient runoff from a range of sources - poor agricultural practices, poor effluent disposal practices (including human), or things like increased carbon influx (from things like algal blooms).

Increased temperature is not in and of itself a credible reason for deadzones, however, when combined with things like increased nutrient load, and increased iron from terrigenous sediments, then it has the potential to cause an algal bloom, which can, as a follow on effect cause the low levels of DO that are being observed (long story short, the carbonaceous material consumes oxygen as it is oxidized both chemically and biologically).

Okay a separate but equally troubling biosphere problem to be added to the growing list of human caused global blunders that's going to eventually bit us in the ass.

 

[Trippy]

Mmhhmm...so grow seaweed where you have effluvient outflow and if the seaweed comes out too contaminated to eat, use it as compost.

Mostly it's non point discharges - septic tanks and the like.

People don't know how to treat them and let them fill up with sludge, and they stop working so well.

If everybody switched over to multichamber aerated systems with packe bed reactors, or textile filters, or something along those lines than it would be greatly improved.

Part of the problem is that tehre are people out there that seem to think that when the EPA says "No straight pipe discharges" that they mean putting an elbow joint into the pipework will be ok.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Roy Spencer is a proponent of Intelligent Design, so he's another biased religious nutcase.

I don't see how it's related to his status as a climatologist and the quality of his research into clouds. :shrug:

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Mostly it's non point discharges - septic tanks and the like.

People don't know how to treat them and let them fill up with sludge, and they stop working so well.

If everybody switched over to multichamber aerated systems with packe bed reactors, or textile filters, or something along those lines than it would be greatly improved.

Part of the problem is that tehre are people out there that seem to think that when the EPA says "No straight pipe discharges" that they mean putting an elbow joint into the pipework will be ok.

May I ask how you know these things? Do you have a background that requires you to know about this type of problem. The thought of numerous individual septic tank discharges being a big part of this problem would never even occur to me. Probably because it just doesn't seem like it could be a problem of that scale.

 

[Read-Only]

May I ask how you know these things? Do you have a background that requires you to know about this type of problem. The thought of numerous individual septic tank discharges being a big part of this problem would never even occur to me. Probably because it just doesn't seem like it could be a problem of that scale.

And I agree. Municipal treatment plants discharges and agricultural run-off would have THOUSANDS of times more impact than that!

 

[Trippy]

May I ask how you know these things? Do you have a background that requires you to know about this type of problem. The thought of numerous individual septic tank discharges being a big part of this problem would never even occur to me. Probably because it just doesn't seem like it could be a problem of that scale.

It's work related, I work for the equivalent of the EPA, and i deal primarily with issues relating to groundwater and surface water contamination.

At the moment I have three projects on the hope. One relates to urban runoff - which can have heavy metal levels comparable to landfill leachate, through road use (tyres and brakepads), and housing.

One relates to septic tanks. In the area I live, there are 20,000 properties likely to have septic tanks that meet the EPA criterion for high density, of those I think something like 4,000 are in area with vulnerable ground or surface water. I'm currently looking at a plan that will cost between 400,000 and 1.1 million NZD that will see those tanks cleaned out, inspected, graded, and may lead to further enforcement action to make sure that they meet certain minimum requirements (Presence of an outlet filter, all walls incl base present and intact, more than 2000l).

The third one relates to the water quality of a signifcant local waterway, which displays some odd trends, and is generaly degraded. The samples I've collected, and the patterns in the full data set (when the new data is combined with pre-existing data) indicates that this is primarily due to diffuse pollution sources, and it appears to be related to certain land use types and practices (for example grazing livestock right up to the waters edge). In this matter, as in the previous matter, I will be treading softly, and endeavouring to work co-operatively with the land owners, however, make no bones about it, I carry a very big stick.

I have a warrant, that under government legislation grants me certain powers, including powers of entry (not as comprehensive as, for example, the police) and requires a certain minimum level of co-operation from land owners, however, if the situation warrents it, I can, for example apply for a search warrant, and issue and abatement notice, or an infringement notice, or, if push comes to shove, I pull together a file including the evidence I have gathered, write up a report outlining the events and the evidence, and submit it to my CEO to approve a prosecution, which could (as a maximum penalty) see jail time imposed, and fines of up to 250,000 or 300,000 NZD (I forget which).

If I may be allowed a moment of arrogance, conceit and gloating. Unlike some posters in this forum that like to sit around and pontificate about how we can reduce pollution, I'm actually out there in the field doing something about it.

 

[Trippy]

And I agree. Municipal treatment plants discharges and agricultural run-off would have THOUSANDS of times more impact than that!

And you'd be wrong.

Municipal treatment plants are required to reach and maintain certain minimum standards (at least here they are anyway - I used to monitor them as well).

Unlike onsite wastewater treatment, in which the quality of the discharge is dependent entirely upon how well the system is designed, and how much care its users take of it.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

It's work related, I work for the equivalent of the EPA, and i deal primarily with issues relating to groundwater and surface water contamination.

At the moment I have three projects on the hope. One relates to urban runoff - which can have heavy metal levels comparable to landfill leachate, through road use (tyres and brakepads), and housing.

One relates to septic tanks. In the area I live, there are 20,000 properties likely to have septic tanks that meet the EPA criterion for high density, of those I think something like 4,000 are in area with vulnerable ground or surface water. I'm currently looking at a plan that will cost between 400,000 and 1.1 million NZD that will see those tanks cleaned out, inspected, graded, and may lead to further enforcement action to make sure that they meet certain minimum requirements (Presence of an outlet filter, all walls incl base present and intact, more than 2000l).

The third one relates to the water quality of a signifcant local waterway, which displays some odd trends, and is generaly degraded. The samples I've collected, and the patterns in the full data set (when the new data is combined with pre-existing data) indicates that this is primarily due to diffuse pollution sources, and it appears to be related to certain land use types and practices (for example grazing livestock right up to the waters edge). In this matter, as in the previous matter, I will be treading softly, and endeavouring to work co-operatively with the land owners, however, make no bones about it, I carry a very big stick.

I have a warrant, that under government legislation grants me certain powers, including powers of entry (not as comprehensive as, for example, the police) and requires a certain minimum level of co-operation from land owners, however, if the situation warrents it, I can, for example apply for a search warrant, and issue and abatement notice, or an infringement notice, or, if push comes to shove, I pull together a file including the evidence I have gathered, write up a report outlining the events and the evidence, and submit it to my CEO to approve a prosecution, which could (as a maximum penalty) see jail time imposed, and fines of up to 250,000 or 300,000 NZD (I forget which).

If I may be allowed a moment of arrogance, conceit and gloating. Unlike some posters in this forum that like to sit around and pontificate about how we can reduce pollution, I'm actually out there in the field doing something about it.

I like your response and attitude, keep up the good work. Kick ass and take names. I believe every bit of positive action helps. Thank You

 

[Read-Only]

And you'd be wrong.

Municipal treatment plants are required to reach and maintain certain minimum standards (at least here they are anyway - I used to monitor them as well).

Unlike onsite wastewater treatment, in which the quality of the discharge is dependent entirely upon how well the system is designed, and how much care its users take of it.

And I still disagree - strongly! I'm a former wastewater plant operator, licensed by the state. I cannot imagine what you are basing your inaccurate statements upon. The plant certainty reduces the biological load but can do absolutely NOTHING about the mineral content of the effluent. Almost every pound of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous that entered the plant (and that resulted from biological degradation of solid/liquid waste) are STILL present at the point of discharge and are fertilizers for aquatic plants. The sole exception is the sludge that is removed from the settleling tanks that is either burned or hauled away.

The treatment plants of Miami, FL alone would account for FAR more organic growth in the ocean than from the trickle that would manage to leach offshore from all the individual septic tanks field lines in the entire state.

And incidentally, all on-site treatment plants are required by law in most states (actually, all states that I'm aware of) to feed their effluent into the local municipal plant(s) for the completion of the treatment process.

 

[Trippy]

And I still disagree - strongly! I'm a former wastewater plant operator, licensed by the state. I cannot imagine what you are basing your inaccurate statements upon.

I'm basing my 'inaccurate statements' on work experience, and the fact that discharge from a single chamber septic tank can have BOD[sub]5[/sub] of up to 150ppm, Total N of up to 60ppm, and Total Phosphorus of up to 15ppm, I've seen one system that was discharging with BOD[sub]5[/sub] of 200-300 ppm, and TN in excess of 120ppm. And the fact that to the best of my recollection, every discharge permit I've seen has limits of N<50, P<10 and BOD[sub]5[/sub]<50.

The plant certainty reduces the biological load but can do absolutely NOTHING about the mineral content of the effluent. Almost every pound of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous that entered the plant (and that resulted from biological degradation of solid/liquid waste) are STILL present at the point of discharge and are fertilizers for aquatic plants. The sole exception is the sludge that is removed from the settleling tanks that is either burned or hauled away.

Then maybe you should have considered some form of tertiary level of treatment, or using some form of biological polishing (wetlands or trickling filters can be good in this regard).

The treatment plants of Miami, FL alone would account for FAR more organic growth in the ocean than from the trickle that would manage to leach offshore from all the individual septic tanks field lines in the entire state.

You might be right - but remember what I actually said:
"Municipal treatment plants are required to reach and maintain certain minimum standards (at least here they are anyway - I used to monitor them as well).

Unlike onsite wastewater treatment, in which the quality of the discharge is dependent entirely upon how well the system is designed, and how much care its users take of it."

This is still true, and not mutually exclusive with your statement.

And incidentally, all on-site treatment plants are required by law in most states (actually, all states that I'm aware of) to feed their effluent into the local municipal plant(s) for the completion of the treatment process.

You haven't figured out yet that I'm not American?

What did you think NZD stood for?

The statement that I disagreed with was this one:
"And I agree. Municipal treatment plants discharges and agricultural run-off would have THOUSANDS of times more impact than that."
It might sometimes be true, but it's not exclusively true, and is not always true, as I have shown above.

If you've got a community of 500 people on Septic tanks, and a community of 500 people on a reticulated centralized system, even if they treat to the same standard, what precisely are you trying to tell me the difference in mass flow of nutrients delivered to the environment is?

 

[chimpkin]

If everybody switched over to multichamber aerated systems with packe bed reactors, or textile filters, or something along those lines than it would be greatly improved.

I'd love to get the system in m Mom's house upgraded to an aerobic system.
Too bad I don't just happen to have $10,000 lying around.

If any work's to be done on the septic, I'm going to have to do it myself, illegally, because I can't afford to have it upgraded to meet the new law-they did not write any sort of waiver / financial assistance into it.

Personally, I think there's a market to be had for backyard, solar-powered, one-house sized mini-blackwater-treatment units in a box...if it could be made more cheaply than having septic work done!
(Was thinking a revamped 12-foot shipping container could be used, for further savings...)

Trippy, you're the engineering person...is that possible or likely? If so, there's a free business idea...kindly sell me one, I could really use it.

 

[Trippy]

I'd love to get the system in m Mom's house upgraded to an aerobic system.
Too bad I don't just happen to have $10,000 lying around.

If any work's to be done on the septic, I'm going to have to do it myself, illegally, because I can't afford to have it upgraded to meet the new law-they did not write any sort of waiver / financial assistance into it.

Personally, I think there's a market to be had for backyard, solar-powered, one-house sized mini-blackwater-treatment units in a box...if it could be made more cheaply than having septic work done!
(Was thinking a revamped 12-foot shipping container could be used, for further savings...)

Trippy, you're the engineering person...is that possible or likely? If so, there's a free business idea...kindly sell me one, I could really use it.

As Read-Only correctly pointed out, the hardest part is dealing with dissolved nutrients.

 

[Trippy]

As Read-Only correctly pointed out, the hardest part is dealing with dissolved nutrients.

Although, sometimes Carbon dosing can help (can be done with Molasses) - I would reccomend having a chat with someone else before you do anything like that though, it's not always neccessary, and it's not always effective, but if done right it can help improve nitrogen and phosphorus sequestration.

Sludge buildup is the number one killer of septic tanks and disposal fields.
Check the sludge depth - I seem to recall there's some pointers on how to do this for yourself around the EPA website.
Make sure the filters are clear, and clean, replace them if neccessary, fit them if you can.
Make sure that the disposal field is of an appropriate size, and operating correctly, there should be no surface runoff, no odour, etc, etc.
Be friendly to the septic tank flora, re-seed it if neccessary, avoid inappropriate chemicals, keep it healthy (I can probably track down some literature for you).