Global Warming ??

[JHAQ]

Has any authority made a calculation re the levels of atmospheric CO2 which would come about if ALL carboniferous fossil fuel ( coal , oil etc ) left in the world was combusted ? Also any predicted effect on climate . All such fuel is a product of photosynthesis millenia ago & that required CO2 which means CO2 must have been much higher then & perhaps climate much hotter . I know it was but how much hotter ------

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nobody even knows how much fossil fuel there is left!

[Sayonara]

Best estimates say the age of fossil fuels will end in somewhere between 20 and 80 years.

[JHAQ]

Quite true about how much is left but there are estimates .

[JHAQ]

PS But forget about natural gas as this may not be of biologic origin .

[boris_73]

thats a big gap between 20-80 years in 20 years time i will be 38 so it might really bother me but in 80 years i am most probably going to be dead so i would'nt care that much see how much of a big gap it is

[Sayonara]

PS But forget about natural gas as this may not be of biologic origin .

Yes, it is. Well most of it is.

 

 

thats a big gap between 20-80 years in 20 years time i will be 38 so it might really bother me but in 80 years i am most probably going to be dead so i would'nt care that much see how much of a big gap it is

Those are the upper and lower estimates, obviously, so it's probably going to be somewhere in the middle. My money is on about 2050.

 

Non-renewable fuel of any kind will be verrrry expensive before then.

[MolecularMan14]

i dunno, the age of fossil fuels might end then, but there will still probably be fossil here by then. If we drill in Alaska and off the coast of CA, then we would have plenty, by controversy and wildlife is keeping us from doing that.

I think we should develop a sustainable energy source, like solar power, but more efficient; or windmills, but less...umm...bird killing...

[Ophiolite]

I don't see a practical point of computing the amount of CO2 that would be generated if ALL fossil fuel were combusted. Why? Two reasons, the first is trivial, the second seems fundamental:

1. The rate of absorption within the system has also to be considered and this would depend in part upon the time period over which the release occurs, changes in the efficiency of seqestration mechanisms (e.g. reversing deforestation), etc.

2. There is no conceivable, practical manner in which ALL could be burnt, because of the problems of recovery. Oil fields that have 'run dry' may have as much as half (indeed more) of their hydrocabons still in place. There is likely at least as much hydrocarbon again in rocks that are not considered resrvoirs or potential reservoirs.

 

If you are meaning ALL RECOVERABLE hydrocarbons, then point 1. , above, is no longer trivial.

[JHAQ]

OK Ophiolite , you are right re - recoverable hydrocarbons . The question goes to the ultimate consequences of fossil fuel conbustion ( a lot goes into plastics ) & some estimate of just how disasterous this might or might not be . Of course an even bigger question is what will happen when it is all exhausted especially since a large proportion of fossil fuel calories go into food production ( 40-60 % ? ) ( cultivation , fertilizer , etc ) .

[Aardvark]

Best estimates say the age of fossil fuels will end in somewhere between 20 and 80 years.

 

That depends on which fuels you are thinking about.

 

Coal reserves are estimated to be nearer 200 years. Whilst oil and gas to be much closer to the 20-80 year figure.

[1veedo]

I dont know abotu you, but my money's on nuclear power.

[Sayonara]

That depends on which fuels you are thinking about.

 

Coal reserves are estimated to be nearer 200 years. Whilst oil and gas to be much closer to the 20-80 year figure.

Yes, but when everyone else starts buying the coal at any price because their petrochemical production has stopped, it'll run out faster.

 

That's what the big advocates of coal in this country don't talk about.

[Ophiolite]

I dont know abotu you, but my money's on nuclear power.

This will have the triple advantage of providing energy in the short term, a reduction in population through nuclear accidents in the medium term, and plenty of mutations for evolution to work on in the longer term.

 

Actually, I agree with you, but until we have fusion in place, then our safety controls will have to be much more rigorous than they have been to date.[Anybody know whether the French and Japanese are more effective at safety than us, or more effective at cover ups?]

[jsatan]

why do some not care because it will happen out side their life time?

what about your kids?

tut tut

[Ophiolite]

why do some not care because it will happen out side their life time?

Because they lack vision, imagination, foresight, compassion and may even be slightly intellectually challenged.

[Spaceman]

what you mean like americans ophi

[RICHARDBATTY]

I sometimes wonder........... .................Sorry I wandered a bit then, but before the last ice age what was the average global temperature. Maybe it was so high that the whole world was tropical, and a lot of the water we are afraid of in the form ice was then in the form of vapour distributing the heat and maintaining a more stable temp. There would have been more land in a hospitable condition. Take aim ....FIRE!

[drz]

not all of use americans are like bush spaceman. There is atleast, maybe, 3 of us, that care about the rest of the world

[Aardvark]

I sometimes wonder........... .................Sorry I wandered a bit then, but before the last ice age what was the average global temperature.

 

Technically speaking we are still in an ice age.

 

Without human intervention it would be expected that the climate would warm enough eventally to melt the Northern polar ice cap at least. The world has gone through several periods hotter than now without any ice at the poles.

[Spaceman]

not all of use americans are like bush spaceman. There is atleast, maybe, 3 of us, that care about the rest of the world

 

No seriously pm me,are you serious about being an american and not only caring for the environment,but actually realise that global warming is happening.Im sincere and am befuddled by your statement.If i may ive got loads of questions i would like to ask

[drz]

hey, ask'em here man, thats what forums are for, or, if you insist, pm away.

 

I was of course kidding about 3 of us, notice the elections were 49% to 51%.

 

While several people say that most of kerry's vote was from people voting against bush, I disagree. I think most of kerry's vote was of the reasonable people who do not wish to see our country, and world, go down the crapper.

[Tetrahedrite]

A study has been conducted that suggest that only half the "extra" carbon dioxide that should be in the atmosphere from fossil fuels is actually there.

Why? It has basically nothing to do with sequestration by forests. The ocean is the biggest buffer of CO2 on Earth. It is all controlled by calcium carbonate equilibria.

 

CO2 + H2O <---> HCO3- + H+ and,

Ca2+ + HCO3- <---> CaCO3(calcite) + H+

 

Sea water is near saturated with Ca2+ ions, so according to Le Chatelier's rule increasing the concentration of CO2 will also increase the production of calcite, removing the CO2 from the system.

 

The point of this is that not many people consider the effect the oceans have on the global warming debate, and that theoretically, given enough time, global warming should be reversible.

[drz]

the key word there of course is should. But if people don't care, or expect some grant saviour to come fix everything, what do you expect will happen?

 

I mean, the earth I'm sure has been much, much colder then it is now, and likely, much hotter. I'm sure it has a way of dealing with imbalances and such, but if we're tipping the scale quicker then it can react, what will happen?

 

I had also read something about the oceans absorbing alot of the emmissions, but, suggested that if this trend continues or increases, most of the ocean life will go extinct.

[1veedo]

Temperature variations is a standard cycle that's happened throughout earths history.

 

Scientists studying in Antarctica have decided that the ozone layer isnt depleting, and astronomers claim that the sun's burning brighter then ever; but, the sun alone doesnt account for all of the global climate change.

 

I’m not too worried about the temperature though. We’ve been through ice ages before. In the paleolithic, they lasted 40 - 60 thousand each with around 20 thousand years in between when the Earth got really hot, then started getting colder. The last ice age ended c. 8000BCE so we’re due another ice age in the next 10 thousand years or so.

 

 

I'm not sure of the accuracy of this statement, but I heard from [a very reliable and extremely smart] friend that in 500 million years (500 thousand?) the atmosphere, regardless of human interaction, will no longer be able to support humans nor many other species of animals (most mammals will die). I may google this in the near future.