X-Message-Number: 22635
From: "Steve Harris" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #22628 Greenhouse effect from fossil fuels
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:14:54 -0700

> Message #22628
> From: "Mark Plus" <>
> Subject: CNN: World oil and gas 'running out'
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:52:24 -0700
>
>
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warmin
g/
>
> World oil and gas 'running out'
> By CNN's Graham Jones
> Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 1245 GMT ( 8:45 PM HKT)
>>
> Global oil supplies will peak soon after 2010, Swedish
scientists say.
>
>
> LONDON, England -- Global warming will never bring a
"doomsday scenario" a
> team of scientists says -- because oil and gas are running
out much faster
> than thought.



COMMENT:

The ignorance of this conclusion by the Uppsalla people, is
breathtaking. If we burn even the lower number for carbon
reserves, we're still in big trouble.


> According to the Uppsala team, nightmare predictions of
melting ice caps and
> searing temperatures will never come to pass because the
reserves of oil and
> gas just are not big enough to create that much carbon
dioxide (CO2).

COMMENT

Arrgh. We'll do a little high school math below to see if
that's true.





> The Uppsala team say the amount of oil and gas left is the
equivalent of
> around 3,500 billion barrels of oil -- the IPCC say
between 5,000 and 18,000
> billion barrels.



COMMENT

Okay, here we go. Let's pretend the Uppsala team is right
about the lower amount of fossil fuel reserves. A billion
barrels (gigabarrel = GB) of oil contains 0.115 gigaton of
carbon, as one barrel of oil has 115 kg carbon in it. A
gigaton of carbon (GtC) is 10^9 metric tons = 10^12 kg of
carbon. Thus, the Upsala people are talking about the
release of "only" 3500 GB, which is 400 GtC into the air.
For scale, consider that right now the entire atmosphere
only contains 750 GtC. Thus, we are talking about CO2 levels
increasing by 400/750 = about 53%. That's a disaster.



Some people have tried to suggest that the oceans (which
contain 40,000 GtC) will buffer the CO2 increase, but
history says it won't happen. We have the record of CO2
levels since the industrial/petroleum revolution, which has
happened roughly since 1860 (99% of all fossil fuel has been
burned since then). with a doubling time of roughly 30
years. Mankind's entire carbon contribution to the
atmosphere since 1860 is about 250 GtC.  How much of that
has stayed in the air?  What has that 250 GtC from the last
140 years of industry done to us?  In 1860 CO2 levels were
about 280 ppm (by volume) for a total of 570 GtC. CO2 levels
are now 367 ppm, an increase of about 30% over the last 140
years. So we've added 250 GtC of fossil fuel carbon, and 178
GtC (or more than 70%) of the carbon we've added has stayed
in the atmosphere, with less than 30% going into the ocean
(trees and soil don't contribute since with deforestation,
carbon is going the other way, there).



Right now the world is putting out about 6 GtC per year, so
the next 400 GtC we add to our atmosphere will be over 400/6
= 66 years at present rates. So we won't get 140 years to
buffer this, but 66 years or less (depending on whether or
not we can bring our present production rates under control
and begin to decrease them). A good guess is that 85% of it
will stay in the atmosphere, so instead of 53%, CO2 levels,
due to buffering, will go up at least 45%, if history serves
to predict. Therefore, we can expect CO2 levels to increase
by roughly 170 ppm (up a total of 45% from present numbers)
if we burn the equivalent of 3500 GB of fossil fuel. And if
Upsalla is wrong and previous predictions are correct,
double that number.



Even a 30% increase is doing bad things to the world's
climate. A piece of the antarctic ice shelf the size of
Rhode Island broke off a few years ago. All glaciers are
melting.  It's now possible to sail to the North Pole in ice
free water at some times of the year, something never
historically possible. The Northern hemisphere's climate
over the last 5 years has been drier than at any time in
recorded history. And even at the Upsalla total release
estimate, the amount of CO2 increase in the air will be
twice as large as that, and corresponding effect twice as
great.



Summary: we've seen what an increase of 87 ppm did. We can't
really take another 170 ppm (twice that) without real
problems. And that number comes from the Upsalla
"optimistic" view. If they are *wrong*, quadruple our
present warming, or even more.



Time for wind power and pebble bed fission reactors, folks.



SBH

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22635