About carbon dioxide and energy sources

[Jammer]

Read the rather long thread about the Kyoto agreement and the conceptions about carbon dioxide and energy sources. I felt I could perhaps bring some light to the discussion as I noticed quite a few misunderstandings.

1. About carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a gas naturally occuring in the atmosphere, and it's a nessecity for life on this planet. During the geological life span of the earth the CO2 levels has been varying greatly due to different (natural) reasons. When discussion artificial (human generated) CO2 emissions it's useful to distinguish between two types of emissions, namely

A) Fossil CO2 (oil, natural gas, gasoline, coal)
B) Biospheric CO2 (wood fuel etc.)

(pardon if I use the wrong terms here, I usuall use the swedish words)

The difference here is subtle but important. Use of non-fossil fuels (alternative B) does not increase the net amount of carbon dioxide in the biosphere, but in theory the CO2 generated is absorbed by new plants and trees to form new fuel. Again in theory, this is a sustainable system.

Usage of fossil fuels however, adds CO2 to the biosphere that are not regenerated back into fossil fuel in a reasonable timescale. Fossil fuels are the result of geological processes and renewing them takes thousands of years.

2) "Greenhouse effect"

This controversial subject is widely discussed. In fact the green house effect is somthing we need here on the earth, or the planet would be considerably colder, and possibly too cold for any life. The greenhouse effect is a term describing the inherent properties of some gases that in the atmosphere acts as green house glass, they allow short wavelenght radiation (vis light, UV light) to pass through and keeps the long wave lenght radiation (IR light or heat) in.
The atmosphere is consitsing of mainly three gases: Nitrogen (N2), carbondioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2). Of theese CO2 is the most effective 'green house gas'. There are more gases in the atmosphere, and some that are even more effective green house gases, but we'll keep it simple.
So if you increase the share of CO2 in the atmosphere you end up building a more effective green house. You get all the presequites (sp?) for a warmer climate. Now there are other factors to influence the global temperature (weather patterns, humidity, earth surface reflective index etc.), but all in all, raising the CO2 level will probably give you a warmer green house.

3. Artificial effects vs. natural effects

Well, what is it that we see? Can we be sure that the current climate change is not 'natural'? Is it really our fault?

This is a disputed issue, and I'm not going to claim to have the answer. What we CAN be quite sure of is that:

-Using fossil fuels is in fact increasing the RISK of climate changes. Due to CO2 generation but also other hydro carbons that are a by-product by combustion.

-Fossil fuels is a limited resource that are likely to be depleted within the next 50-100 years or so.

-Using fossil fuels are undisputedly adding to the net amounts of CO2 in the biosphere. Together with the exploitation of the 'earth´s lungs' (Amazonas and other major forested areas) the net effect is even more pronounced.

4. Discussion

The price of energy might seem to be a simple equation: fossil fuel = cheap energy, renewable energy = expensive energy. But what we fail to take into account is the 'hidden costs':

-Destroyed estate and property due to global warming (debatable, but should still be considered in global economic perspective)
-Costs tied to the transformation period when the fossil fues are depleted. If preparations are not made now, the impact will be much greater when the oil DO run out.
-What 'cheap fossil energy' we use now will not be available to generation to come. We simply use up our childrens resources. This short-term perspective on energy useage is doomed to be harshly judged by future generations (if there will be any such future generations to judge us).

Now why should we, anyone have to adopt to another way of life? Why should I not be allowed to drive my car as much as I want? Why shouldn't I buy another air-conditioner? Why should I pay more for the energy I use?

There's only one answer to this IMO, and that is:

"Solidarity with future generations".

What we leave behind will be their planet on which they have to live their lives. Never before in history has mankind had such an impact on the planet, and the prospect of potentially destroying it. Never before has the future of the planet rested so much on the shoulders of mankind.

It's up to us what we do of our future, what we leave to our kids and their kids.

You choose.

Going through life with the idea that you only have to think about yourself is a sure way to kill off this beutiful planet.

Thank you for your time.  

[Gh0stFT]

Jammer,
No doubt the Earth have its natural effects since million of years.
But I'm interessted only in the last 100 years since the start of the technical revolution,
Cars and Factories. I'm still searching reliable information about this problem and how large
the impact was added to the natural effects. Since our Fossil fuels is a limited resource that
are likely to be depleted within the next 50-100 years maybe its a waste of time to change it
that early, or in 100 years maybe the next generation will live on a Planet called "Desert"  

Gh0stFT

[Jammer]

Hi,

Finding 'reliable' sources on how big the impact of human activities is on global climate is impossible, simply because it's a case of 'what had happend if...'.

Any theory can always be disputed because of the many variables involved. Scientific reports on this tend to reflect the opinions of underlying funding organizations - it has become a political tool more than anything else.

However, it's a fairly reliable assumption that the human activities the last 150 years has had a significant impact on the global climate. How large this impact is is next to impossible to assess because of the 'what if...' scenario I mentioed.

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Jammer:
[QB][/QB]

 Hi, Jammer.
 Nice post. I would like to add/correct you on some points though.
 I do not know enough yet to make conclusions about whether the global warming is a real threat but it makes sence to assume it is till proven otherwise.
 Personally I do whatever I can concervationwise - I hate waste, even though I do not support some ill-founded political initiatives, like Kyoto accord.

1. About carbon dioxide
A) Fossil CO2 (oil, natural gas, gasoline, coal)
B) Biospheric CO2 (wood fuel etc.)

 Volcanic CO2 emission seem to greatly exceed  human - produced emissions.

Usage of fossil fuels however, adds CO2 to the biosphere that are not regenerated back into fossil fuel in a reasonable timescale.
 First, a slight increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes great increase in photosynthesis.
 Second, ocean (algae) absorbs more carbon then land plants. That algae gets eaten by plancton and considerable part of that carbon sinks to the bottom where, for the lack of oxygen, it gets taken out of circulation pretty quickly. Ocean is the greatels regulator of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2) "Greenhouse effect"
CO2 is the most effective 'green house gas'.
 May be per molecule, but there is so much water vapor in atmosphere then CO2, that it is by far much more significant for greenhouse effect.

-Using fossil fuels is in fact increasing the RISK of climate changes. Due to CO2 generation but also other hydro carbons that are a by-product by combustion.
 Those effects must be greatly balanced (possibly completely) by increased ocean absorbtion and accelerated photosynthesis - bot on land and in the ocean with subsequent deposit to the ocean bottom.

-Fossil fuels is a limited resource that are likely to be depleted within the next 50-100 years or so.
 That I agree on. That stuff should be used as valuable source of chemicals rather then burned spewing poisons (like mercury and other) into atmosphere. Russian chemist Mendeleev once said that burning oil is like burning money.

It's up to us what we do of our future, what we leave to our kids and their kids.
You choose.
Going through life with the idea that you only have to think about yourself is a sure way to kill off this beutiful planet.
 Unfortunately people ignore much more dire warnings. History is full of examples of narrowmindedness and wishfull thinking.
 I wouldn't hold my breath that any changes occur before we see some flooding...
 50 horsepower cars were considered real powerfull seventy years ago. Since then we have much better roads, much stronger and lighter materials and better energy storage for increasing peak power output (like flywheels or batteries). So we should be able to get by on even less-powered cars, right?

 

miko

[Jammer]

Good points miko.

However, I said:
 

Of theese CO2 is the most effective 'green house gas'.

I AM familiar with the fact that vapor is a very relevant green house gas. Also, a rise in the temperature might lead to increased humidity or vapor content in the atmosphere to further escalate the problem.  

Otherwise I think we agree on most points; until proven unharmful or non-existing, the supposed 'greenhouse effect' should be treated as potentially fatal.

On a side note I personally belive that we have already seen the beginning of what is to come, with floodings all over the world, erratic weather patterns and so on. However, to prove the correlation CO2 emissions, well that's another story.

Cheers,

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]

[Ripsnort]

Fella's, hate to tell ya, but THIS photo is what will likely turn the planet into a desert FAR more than a bunch of little ants running around on the surface(humans)

 

Incidently, here's the story that goes with it.

This is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite view
                   showing the large plume of ash and smoke blowing towards the southeast from the
                   eruption of Mount Etna on the Italian island of Sicily, Tuesday afternoon, July 24,
                   2001. (AP Photo/NOAA)

[Jammer]

But volcanic activities is nothing new, and also beyond our control.

IMO it doesn't change the argument to limit the use of fossil fuels. Using such logic would soon have us recess back into the dark ages.  

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Jammer:
Also, a rise in the temperature might lead to increased humidity or vapor content in the atmosphere to further escalate the problem.      

Actually, increase of greenhouse effect due to increase of water vapor is almost exactly compensated (or even over-compensated) by clouds' reflective properties - during the day.
 During the night water vapor in atmosphere does not let earth temperature drop below freezing.
 So any global warming will cause more clouds which will promptly reflect heat back to space and the temperature will drop. So here is another control mechanism, besides depositing excess carbon on the ocean floor.

But volcanic activities is nothing new, and also beyond our control.
 If volcanic emissions - not just spectacuar eruptions, but also immense quantities seeping out every day are orders of magnitude higher then human emissions, it may be a waste of efforts to apply drastic measures to reduce the later.

 miko

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[Jammer]

Miko, IF that is the case yes, it might be futile to reduce CO2 emissions by reducing fossil fuel use.

But there's other reasons as well for reducing fossil fuel useage that hold their own merit (resource depleting, carcinogenic/toxic by products, envronmental disasters concerning the handling of fossil fuels etc.)

No matter how you turn, the tail is still behind you...  

[DingHao2]

Originally posted by miko2d:


  So we should be able to get by on even less-powered cars, right?

miko

Uh oh...I'm sure u would not be willing to give up a restored 300C or any other muscle car or your new Corvette would you??  I'm sorry, but most people want a good, powerful car--not some poor 50 HP thingamajig that can barely make 60 mph...thats just environmental nut job talk.

Warming and cooling has been occuring in the environment for millions of years--so its nothing to worry about.  Did the indutrial revolution warm up our planet??  No.  And we already have a clean, efficient energy source--nuclear power.  The benefits of nuclear power far outweigh the risks.  What about Chernobl??--'tis a result of Commie incompetancy.  Three mile island--'tis a result of worker stupidity.  In short, nuclear power has an excellent safety record.  And with capitalism spreading around the world, new markets emerging, and the Marxism evil dieing, I would dare harm any developing countries with unneccesary regulations--these developing nations have ENOURMOUS potential--with their extra influx in the world GDP, all the problems that the left talks about could very well DISSAPEAR...forever...and not turn into another problem.

[Nashwan]

What 'cheap fossil energy' we use now will not be available to generation to come. We simply use up our childrens resources. This short-term perspective on energy useage is doomed to be harshly judged by future generations (if there will be any such future generations to judge us).

Future generations can develop their own energy sources. I doubt fossil fuels will run out inside the next hundred years, which should be long enough to get fusion working, and improve solar to where it is cost effective.
On the predictions of fossil fuels running out, remember the seventies when they told us oil would only last another 20-30 years? Remember the sixties when they told us aluminium deposits would only last another 30 years?
Think it's a coincidence they have all jumped on the bandwagon and are claiming burning fossil fuels will destroy the climate, when 20 years ago they were telling us there wasn't enough fuel to go round?
I take everything enviromentalists say with a grain of salt, because they have been proved wrong almost every time.

[Jammer]

Well it's hard to think outside of the box. All great changes in history happend through revolutions or disasters.

The comment about 'giving up your old muscle car' is very illustrative to this. No one is willing to change their way of life for what they percieve as 'worse'.

However, when/if people realize that taking care of the planet is not a bad thing they might reconsider...
 

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Jammer:

However, when/if people realize that taking care of the planet is not a bad thing they might reconsider...
   

Most folks support taking care of our planet, but when its presented via a political platform intended soley on making money, or taken to extreme measures by using excessive tax revenue to discourage use of personal property, well, lets just say some of us can see thru that thin vail of misinformation.

I like what BMW is doing currently, touring the world in Hydrogen powered cars...the problem is, getting Gov't's to think outside the box, the problem right now is not the safty of carrying hydrogen fuel on board a car, it is the problem of supply and distribution of such fuel, and that is where the problem lies, Gov'ts depend on the revenues of oil, gas sales, and have infrastructures deeply invested and embedded in an oil infrastructure, not a hydrogen one.  It will take alot of money, and many years to convert to any other type of fuel infrastructure.  It won't happen over night.

[Jammer]

Come on now, it's not like you'd have to give up your TV set or even the means to transport yourself. It's not like anyone suggest that we should go back to live in caves.

Why is it always black and white? There are degrees to this matter, and a slow gradual transformation into a non-fossil fuel community doesn't have to be a disaster.

However, the corporate structures in the world currently has little interest in developing alternatives since old technology is 'easy profit'.

And arguing that we should upkeep the whole fossil fuel production structure because a few individuals want to drive old cars to feed their nostalgia is ridicolous. Sure let them drive, but also have them pay for it.

I don't know what the "thin veil of misinformation" would consist of, anyone can look at the facts and draw their own conclutions, moral and logical.

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Ding_Hao:
Did the indutrial revolution warm up our planet??  No.[/QB]

Ding you know something even our teachers dont know  
Your "No" is based on what facts, research ?
I guess its based on your "feelings" today heh
tomorrow could it be "yes" ?  
I search realistic answers Ding, dont say Yes or No if you dont know it or are not sure.

greets
Gh0stFT