Global Warming

[adoucette]

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

Yes, and it points out that every area is unique such that what might be a problem in NZ is not necessarily as much of a problem in the US.

While ~25% of our population rely on septic systems they only account for ~10% of our waste water and so given the vast size of the US they have not been found to be a major issue to our Dead Zones (not saying they don't contribute, or that in some areas their biological load might be significant).

By far the most significant of our dead zones is in the Gulf of Mexico and though a hypoxic zone at the end of a river is a natural phenomena caused by stratification of nutrient rich fresh water over colder bottom water cutting it off from surface O2, the much expanded size of our dead zone is predominately caused by Agricultural run off, so that's where we need to focus our efforts on in the US.

In the northern Gulf of Mexico, the time course of eutrophication and hypoxia followed most closely the exponential growth of fertilizer use beginning in the 1950s.

While in the urban North East atmospheric nitrogen pollution from fossil-fuel combustion is dominant.

Arthur

 

[KilljoyKlown]

@Trippy, Read-Only & adoucette

All to often Global warming topics never include the oceans of the world in the discussion. After listening to you three, I have to wonder why not. The oceans are as important to us as any other part of our over all biosphere and it looks like they are in big trouble and in need of world cooperation to solve the problem. If you have any ideas on promoting world cooperation I'm all ears. Other than that I'd like to thank you for providing some much needed education to this thread.

 

[adoucette]

@Trippy, Read-Only & adoucette

All to often Global warming topics never include the oceans of the world in the discussion. After listening to you three, I have to wonder why not.

Well they do, but because the mass of the oceans is so much greater than the atmosphere that temperature effects and decreases in alkalinity take so long to happen, that when one is examining impacts over 100 year time horizons which is typical in climate discussions, it's much more difficult to make a convincing case for significant negative impacts.

IMHO the much more pressing issue to the oceans is severe overfishing and pollution, not temperature.
If we don't solve those problems, will it really matter that the dead oceans warm up a bit over the next century?

Arthur

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Well they do, but because the mass of the oceans is so much greater than the atmosphere that temperature effects and decreases in alkalinity take so long to happen, that when one is examining impacts over 100 year time horizons which is typical in climate discussions, it's much more difficult to make a convincing case for significant negative impacts.

IMHO the much more pressing issue to the oceans is severe overfishing and pollution, not temperature.
If we don't solve those problems, will it really matter that the dead oceans warm up a bit over the next century?

Arthur

Yes you are right, but they are both biosphere problems, that can and will feed off each other. Why shouldn't they be considered in the same conversation?

 

[adoucette]

Because as I said, if we don't solve the much more immediate problems of overfishing and pollution, the much longer range problems to the oceans won't matter.

Overfishing can be dealt with via regulation and treaty, and isn't this massive issue involving use of energy that AGW is.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

if we don't solve the much more immediate problems of overfishing and pollution, the much longer range problems to the oceans won't matter.

Just trying to quantify this a little: overfishing is an immediate problem, it won't take a century to kill off most of the major fisheries. If sharks get wiped out (after > 300 million years) the oceans will be in more trouble. If we wipe out parts of the food chain it could collapse altogether.

Pollution is also immediate, and we have a nice big collection of plastic in the oceans, dating back to the 50's when plastic products first appeared and we started adding them to our waste output. Agriculture and high-density populations tend to produce anoxic zones in coastal regions or lakes and rivers.

But the biggest "immediate" problem is AGW and ocean surface warming. There is thought to be sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere now that a rise in sea levels at least as large as in the Eemian is fairly likely, sometime over the next three centuries. This will most likely cause mass extinctions.

Hansen says that this scenario is "guaranteed", and talking about 450 ppm as an acceptable limit is dreamland. But of course, Hansen is an alarmist, and 300 years is a long time. So given that we are overfishing and over-supplying nutrients all over the place, there probably is less than 300 years left to worry about, after which "the longer range problems won't matter".

 

[Trippy]

Yes, and it points out that every area is unique such that what might be a problem in NZ is not necessarily as much of a problem in the US.

While ~25% of our population rely on septic systems they only account for ~10% of our waste water and so given the vast size of the US they have not been found to be a major issue to our Dead Zones (not saying they don't contribute, or that in some areas their biological load might be significant).

By far the most significant of our dead zones is in the Gulf of Mexico and though a hypoxic zone at the end of a river is a natural phenomena caused by stratification of nutrient rich fresh water over colder bottom water cutting it off from surface O2, the much expanded size of our dead zone is predominately caused by Agricultural run off, so that's where we need to focus our efforts on in the US.

Arthur

For Pete's sake.

Yes, I'm getting just a little frustrated at the moment.

Both of you, take a step back and read what I originally said:

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).

I've hilighted the salient points, seeing as how people seem to be having some difficulty following them.

This was followed by:

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.

In otherwords, the discussion had moved from the broad causes of deadzones - including agriculture runoff, and poor agricultural practices, which, I might add, INCLUDES an element of effluent management and disposal, to one of the more specific points being discussed. A method of remediation was suggested, one which I have also suggested would benefit some municipal wastewater discharges - bioremediation, however, as I pointed out, that would do nothing for non point sources discharges, such as septic tanks, which, like roof runoff, are a source of pollution which is routinely overlooked and underestimated, especially in situations where the tank and disposal fields are poorly maintained or designed.

Now, can we move on?

 

[Trippy]

@Trippy, Read-Only & adoucette

All to often Global warming topics never include the oceans of the world in the discussion. After listening to you three, I have to wonder why not. The oceans are as important to us as any other part of our over all biosphere and it looks like they are in big trouble and in need of world cooperation to solve the problem. If you have any ideas on promoting world cooperation I'm all ears. Other than that I'd like to thank you for providing some much needed education to this thread.

They're even more important than most people realize.

Even if we burn all of our fossil fuels, and turn the planet into a desert, in about 200,000 years, all that extra carbon will be sequestered on the ocean floor, and only about 6-8% of what we dicharged will remain in the atmosphere.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Just trying to quantify this a little: overfishing is an immediate problem, it won't take a century to kill off most of the major fisheries. If sharks get wiped out (after > 300 million years) the oceans will be in more trouble. If we wipe out parts of the food chain it could collapse altogether.

Pollution is also immediate, and we have a nice big collection of plastic in the oceans, dating back to the 50's when plastic products first appeared and we started adding them to our waste output. Agriculture and high-density populations tend to produce anoxic zones in coastal regions or lakes and rivers.

But the biggest "immediate" problem is AGW and ocean surface warming. There is thought to be sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere now that a rise in sea levels at least as large as in the Eemian is fairly likely, sometime over the next three centuries. This will most likely cause mass extinctions.

Hansen says that this scenario is "guaranteed", and talking about 450 ppm as an acceptable limit is dreamland. But of course, Hansen is an alarmist, and 300 years is a long time. So given that we are overfishing and over-supplying nutrients all over the place, there probably is less than 300 years left to worry about, after which "the longer range problems won't matter".

300 years, you must be an optimist? We will be in a world of hurts long before 300 years goes by. World population is still growing and the entire populations of China and India are trying to catch up to our standard of living. If that isn't ringing any alarm bells I don't know what will.

I'm betting most have heard the term “Tipping Point” before. I think we will hit that point this century. I want to be wrong in the worst way. So maybe one of you optimist out there can try and convince me. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

 

[Trippy]

As far as food sources go, what we really need is someone to take the lead with some innovative aquaculture - I have some ideas in that regard as well.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

As far as food sources go, what we really need is someone to take the lead with some innovative aquaculture - I have some ideas in that regard as well.

Yes I agree, but think we should get our above water farming in order as well

I'm a big fan of high rise farming. Uses less water and puts the crops closer to the end consumer. Much easier to grow food without pesticides and all nutrients can be controlled and recycled. Climate controlled all year round and modular so can easily be adjusted for changes in local populations. Not subject to drought or pest predation. What more could you want?

 

[adoucette]

For Pete's sake.

Yes, I'm getting just a little frustrated at the moment.

Lighten up Trippy, I was just providing some specific info on the US situation, not challenging anything you had said.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Lighten up Trippy, I was just providing some specific info on the US situation, not challenging anything you had said.

Arthur

I know.

And I was just pointing out that I had already raised those specific points at the start of the discussion.

 

[chimpkin]

As far as food sources go, what we really need is someone to take the lead with some innovative aquaculture - I have some ideas in that regard as well.

What did you have in mind?

Right now, I believe aquaculture mostly involves taking nonsalable fish, grinding them up, and feeding them to farmed salable species.

Not so good, that.

Being a vegan and nori fan, I thought in therms of edible seaweeds sucking up carbon, giving us some food, and giving fish stocks somewhere to hang out and not be scooped by trawlers.
Growing plants for food in the ocean and trawling's completely incompatible, such that we'd actually have to get international law to protect sea farmers from trawlers.

 

[Trippy]

What did you have in mind?

Right now, I believe aquaculture mostly involves taking nonsalable fish, grinding them up, and feeding them to farmed salable species.

Not so good, that.

Being a vegan and nori fan, I thought in therms of edible seaweeds sucking up carbon, giving us some food, and giving fish stocks somewhere to hang out and not be scooped by trawlers.
Growing plants for food in the ocean and trawling's completely incompatible, such that we'd actually have to get international law to protect sea farmers from trawlers.

Vat farming. More or less.
Hell, I'm also a fan of the idea of vat grown meat.

 

[chimpkin]

Hell, I'm also a fan of the idea of vat grown meat.

If it can be done without the land-use burden of meat and if Petrimeat doesn't feel pain-I'll be absolutely ecstatic when it comes on the market! If it won't make me fat again I might actually eat it.

(According to this quite preachy page, meat use roughly quarters the amount of protein you get out of an acre of cropland: http://www.rosenlake.net/er/Lugenbehl.html)

 

[Rocks]

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.

EXACTLY. This is pretty much what all of the coal and oil we are digging up is really made of - plant matter. The composting process is the crux of the carbon cycle!

 

[tomhanks]

Can anyone tell me h]

Do you have an argument against the evidence/points he presented?

I hate global warming,we should together protect environment

 

[Trippy]

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

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.

Yes, and it points out that every area is unique such that what might be a problem in NZ is not necessarily as much of a problem in the US.

While ~25% of our population rely on septic systems they only account for ~10% of our waste water and so given the vast size of the US they have not been found to be a major issue to our Dead Zones (not saying they don't contribute, or that in some areas their biological load might be significant).

By far the most significant of our dead zones is in the Gulf of Mexico and though a hypoxic zone at the end of a river is a natural phenomena caused by stratification of nutrient rich fresh water over colder bottom water cutting it off from surface O2, the much expanded size of our dead zone is predominately caused by Agricultural run off, so that's where we need to focus our efforts on in the US.

While in the urban North East atmospheric nitrogen pollution from fossil-fuel combustion is dominant.

Arthur

I'm going to quote liberaly from a 2006 publication called:
PHOSPHORUS GEOCHEMISTRY IN SEPTIC TANKS, SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEMS, AND GROUNDWATER.
Published by Lombardo Associates Inc in April 2006.

Streams &
Rivers 		19 	14 	25 	5
Lakes &
Ponds 		20	20 	19 	7
Estuaries 	72 	22 	10 	17

Where the columns are, in order: Water body type, % Assessed, % Nutrient Impaired, % Impaired by agricultural sources, % impaired by WWTP discharges.
Based on USEPA 1997

Anthropogenic sources of phosphorus to the environment
Other non-point sources
1.1 million metric tons 22%
Manure application
1.8 million metric tons 36%
Fertilizer application
1.8 million metric tons 36%
Wastewater treatment plants
0.26 million metric tons 5%

(based on Gianessi and Peskin 1984)

There are no national data available for phosphorus contributions from on-site wastewater treatment systems to the environment. However, studies performed as part of total maximum daily load (TMDL) development and lake water quality suggest that septic systems can contribute 4 to 55% of total phosphorus to lakes.

Phosphorus loadings from septic tanks also may be regulated as a non-point source during development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for a given water body. A TMDL, as established under section 303 of the Clean Water Act, is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources. For example, a TMDL developed for Lake Carlton, Florida, requires 41% reduction in nonpoint phosphorus sources, of which septic systems accounted for 14% (FL DEP 2003).

The point here being that the nutrient loading contributed to water ways by septic tanks, and non point discharges other than agricultural practices is far from being insignificant, and far from being insignificant compared to municipal WWTP's.

 

[Trippy]

And no, I didn't go looking for the one report that could prove my point, heh.

I was actually looking for some information on Polyphosphates in the environment to try and make sense of some anlytical results of field (stream) samples that almost make sense, but not quite.