• Starless River- Coming to a caving hut near you!

    Any questions or comments please email us at info@starlessriver.com or contact Tony directly. Thanks!

    Click here for the thread

  • Descent QI Competition

    Our October/November issue will be Descent 300 - a major landmark, which we plan to celebrate in style!

    ...we're running a competition with great prizes!

    Click here for more info and how to enter

Carbon offsetting for expeditions

mikem

Well-known member
Wrong, I'm afraid. Warm water absorbs less CO2 than cold water. That's one of the unfortunate feedbacks from rising temperatures.
So, must be that warm climates create more water vapour, that holds "more" CO2 in total, not as a percentage. However, there must be a temperature that absorbs most, as cold water will eventually become ice.
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
So, must be that warm climates create more water vapour, that holds "more" CO2 in total, not as a percentage. However, there must be a temperature that absorbs most, as cold water will eventually become ice.
I'm not sure that the word "must" has much place in scientific reasoning.

The highest solubilty of CO2 in water is at 0 degrees , when it is about seven more times soluble than 60 degrees C.

I know little about tropical karst, but I suspect that the reason tropical caves tend to be larger than temperate ones is that the rain drains through more rotting vegetation, and hence becomes more acidic. I am happy to learn otherwise.
 

mikem

Well-known member
Well, yes there has to be water present in the environment to be vapourised, it doesn't work in deserts.

So, in that case warm water absorbs more CO2 than cold (as more is available)....
 

mikem

Well-known member
You are likely correct, there being more CO2 present from decomposition in the warmer environment. The problem with the solubility question is that most of the data refers to sea water, which doesn't freeze at zero, but depends on the concentration of salt (very few chemical reactions rely on only a single variable).
 
Last edited:

2xw

Active member
Since 2000 world population has increased by almost 30% from 6.14bn to 8.05bn; this obviously isn't an issue as politicians don't seem to mention it; however we are urged to cut down on single use plastics (e.g. plastic straws, poly bags) and try to magically find about £50k each to buy a battery car. Perhaps consider lobbying your MP to cease any/all "incentives" (perceived, or real) which make people think having children is a good idea.

Your Malthusian ideas are centuries old and they've been wrong for all all that time too. The problem with the idea of overpopulation is it supposed that human beings are herd animals and not thinking apes - our population hasn't risen as a consequence of some breeding frenzy, it's risen to meet human ingenuity (Norman Borlaug, take a bow).

China tried your idea, and indeed in many ways our politicians do now by making having children financially difficult - it doesn't lead to population reduction and greater abundance shared among those few that are left - it just leads to food rotting in fields and old people not being cared for.

The natural line of thought that must follow from thinking we are overpopulated is to do the most honourable thing - you first!



To contribute to the topic, Badlad I think donating to an organisation like Moors for the Future is probably your most cost effective means of offsetting emissions. Or the Yorkshire Peat Partnership, any bog restoration organisation really, it holds more carbon than any other environment (as long as you don't plant trees on it!)
 

Fulk

Well-known member
the hungrytroglobite:
I feel, along with many others my age, so disheartened by the number of climate deniers that still exists despite it being the greatest global threat we are facing.
Not just your age (I'm assuming your'e a young person).
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
The problem with the solubility question is that most of the data refers to sea water, which doesn't freeze at zero, but depends on the concentration of salt (very few chemical reactions rely on only a single variable).

I know of no solubility question. The only thing that I was refuting was your unambiguous statement "I know that warm water absorbs more CO2 than cold".

In your statement above, you imply that freezing is a chemical reaction. It isn't. It's a phase change.
 
Before we go too far off on a tangent, it's worth considering the reliability of this Ralph Ellis chap whose posted videos started these distractions. His various books include one where the Scots and Irish are descendants of Tutankhamen. In another fantasy he claims that Jesus was the Grandson of Cleopatra. It's all pseudo nonsense written for the gullible who buy his books. Yes he's written about the Holy Grail too.

Here's a part summary of one if his conspiracy works "Will the twin fundamentalist forces of Environmentalism and Islam take us back to the Dark Ages, and into a new era of fear, ignorance and oppression?" - Says the guy asking us to ignore actual science.

So back to carbon offsetting?
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
Your Malthusian ideas are centuries old and they've been wrong for all all that time too.
That's a fabulous relief to hear; nothing could please me more than to learn that overpopulation isn't an issue. Positively absolutely made my day. :)
 

ChrisJC

Well-known member
Your Malthusian ideas are centuries old and they've been wrong for all all that time too. The problem with the idea of overpopulation is it supposed that human beings are herd animals and not thinking apes - our population hasn't risen as a consequence of some breeding frenzy, it's risen to meet human ingenuity (Norman Borlaug, take a bow).
Humans have been trying to grow their population for ever. Familes with 10 children were the norm 150 years ago, before the welfare state and it's incentives. But mortality before old age (disease, starvation, war) ensured that the population did not increase by much if at all.
We have fixed all of those issues (pesky advances in science), that's why the population is now increasing a lot.
China tried your idea, and indeed in many ways our politicians do now by making having children financially difficult - it doesn't lead to population reduction and greater abundance shared among those few that are left - it just leads to food rotting in fields and old people not being cared for.
I don't believe they are reasons not to try to reduce the population. I know that politicians still go on about the need for population increase (hence their addiction to immigration), but I would rather see a decrease and find a way to solve the problems that are caused. I think those problems would be easier to solve than those caused by an ever increasing population.

The natural line of thought that must follow from thinking we are overpopulated is to do the most honourable thing - you first!
Not having children I think is equivalent, but without the pain.

Chris.
 

mikem

Well-known member
I know of no solubility question. The only thing that I was refuting was your unambiguous statement "I know that warm water absorbs more CO2 than cold"
In your statement above, you imply that freezing is a chemical reaction. It isn't. It's a phase change.
The problem is that it was an ambiguous statement, & in the latter I was referring to how H2O reacts in different states.

Anyway, pretty much only Norway has invested in it's future & the rest of the world can't afford to live without increasing population (to pay for NHS etc)
 

Fjell

Well-known member
The problem is that it was an ambiguous statement, & in the latter I was referring to how H2O reacts in different states.

Anyway, pretty much only Norway has invested in it's future & the rest of the world can't afford to live without increasing population (to pay for NHS etc)
Norway is dependant on everyone else not going broke. They have hardly any means of generating revenue beyond oil and gas. Most other business beyond metals that existed have collapsed due to high labour costs.
 
On another side track, does anyone know of an actual carbon offset forest planted in the UK? Something that I could actually visit and see for myself.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
It's very heartening, reassuring and soul-calming to know that Malthus was incorrect, and that human population numbers/growth per se are nothing to worry about and that carbon offset voluntary/mandatory taxes will resolve everything. Sleeping well at night is important and my earlier concerns about unchecked human population growth being an issue which required addressing can now be set aside. I am totally AOK with going along with this and will forevermore STFU about the topic*


* Probably ;-) Although I'm still a bit fuzzy about how the planet will provide 30bn meals per day by 2050, but hey ho,... not my bad/prob. Yayski.
 
Top