Man Wrecks Planet

[Blake]

Blake-Are you familiar with photosynthesis? The process takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and produces food for the plant and has oxygen as a byproduct.

Yes, ** MrBoy1967**. Very familiar. Why?

assumes no change in rates of usage of fossil fuels. It is neccessary to look, not at current rates, but at the rates at which current rates have changed, the “delta R,” if you will. The delta R is increasing.

Again, what is your point?
If you wish to join the oil debate over in GD I can show you the projections of all these things from several independent sources including the WEO, the WEC and the USGS.
What is your point? Are you suggesting that the ‘’second derivate’ rate of change is so high that we have 1000 years of reserves at current rates, but less than 20 at 2023 rates? That will take some justifying. If not I fail to see the relevance.

Your comment on R&D is a total non sequitur, and appears to be the forth in your post. I really can’t see any relevance in what you posted. I hope you can clarify for us.

[MrBoy1967]

First a source listing:The issue of the Skeptic with the critique of Lomborg is Vol. 9 No2, and it was both pro and con, that is to say, both sides of the issue were presented. It is available at www.skeptic.com.

My photosynthesis question was a rhetorical device designed to prod you into detailing how you can call the Amazon a net carbon source. Apparently, either that was too sophisticated for you or you are being deliberately obtuse.

So you can understand my question: H.O.W. D.O. Y.O.U. C.A.L.L. T.H.E. A.M.A.Z.O.N. A. N.E.T. C.A.R.B.O.N. S.O.U.R.C.E.?

The comment on R&D is relevant in that it pertains to your comment “Energy can be obtained from any number of alternatives, while the hydrocarbons can easily be replaced with vegetation derived substances.” Each of the alternative energy sources has a host of problems-efficiency, cost, generation of power in useful amounts, recovery, externalities, delivery to the consumer, or needing different engineering solutions, and R&D in those areas has fallen off. By not spending the $, the energy companies have allowed the goals of making these alternative energy solutions feasable. Take, for instance the use of vegetation in place of hydrocarbons. There are some particularly nasty chemicals (surfactants, etc.) needed to process the vegetation into usable plastics and fuels, and there has not been adequate money spent on how to handle them without causing grave consequences. To continue, hydroelectric, while fairly clean, uses the combination of water and gravity to create energy, which means it can only be used in a few locations, and requires intentional flooding of an area that may have a viable alternative use. Geothermal requires more expensive drilling than does oil. Serious wind farms are far and few between. Solar still has problems with durability of solar cells. Nuclear has a host of unsolved issues (though it is a fairly safe and clean source overall).

As for delta R, the “1000 year” figure also factors in undiscovered reserves and new recovery technologies (the proverbial unhatched chickens), as well as recovery from areas that we protect for environmental uses, AND the use of hydrocarbon resources that are currently too dirty to use. (For the record: this info comes from classes in Oil & Gas at UT by a man with 30+ yrs of experience in the biz.) Together, they amount to a huge fudge factor. Subtract these hypothetical factors and figure in the delta R, and we have a serious problem.

[JonBodner]

*Originally posted by Daoloth *
**Anyone else find it unusual that Cecil completely omitted any reference to Bjorn Lomberg’s controversial study entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist? **

Sadly, no. Cecil’s biases are getting worse. It makes me wonder if his cousin has taken over writing the columns again…

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been reading TSD for almost 15 years, and I have all the books. I visit every day. But there are certain topics on which I don’t think that Cecil can be trusted any more. If there’s a political angle to a question, you should know that you’re going to have to correct for Cecil’s left-wing biases.

[Blake]

So you can understand my question: H.O.W. D.O. Y.O.U. C.A.L.L. T.H.E. A.M.A.Z.O.N. A. N.E.T. C.A.R.B.O.N. S.O.U.R.C.E.?

B.E.C.A.U.S.E. T.H.A.T. I.S. W.H.A.T. T.H.E P.E.E.R. R.E.V.I.E.W.E.D. S.C.I.E.N.C.E. T.E.L.L.S. U.S.

http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_f...rchive/5505.cfm
“A study of long term data from the Amazon rainforest has put into question the use of the region as a carbon sink under the Kyoto Protocol, with the forests even acting as a carbon source during some periods.”

You apparently don’t even the basic of the global carbon cycle or the processes of carbon fixation.

However if you feel that you haven’t displayed your boorish ignorance enough on this topic yet you can try asking me for the original papers using all caps. :rolleyes:

Subtract these hypothetical factors and figure in the delta R, and we have a serious problem.

All I need to say to this and the rest of that post is that the USGS, the WEO and the WEC all disagree with you.

Given your willingness to post, and try to be rude, with regards to carbon sequestration/oxygen liberation despite an obvious overwhelming ignorance I am not inclined to believe you n this one counter to the authorities either.

[Roger_Mexico]

I am surprised nobody has pointed out Cecil’s gross scientific error. He states, “The substance of importance here is carbon, not carbon dioxide.” When organic matter is burned, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and a whole bunch of other organic compounds are produced, as well as some particulate carbon. The problem is the carbon dioxide, not the particulate carbon. Carbon dioxide has been implicated in global warming. The anthropogenic inputs of CO2 to the atmosphere are sometimes reported as so many million tons of carbon, not as carbon dioxide, simply to normalize the figures.

I will be eagerly awaiting Cecil’s correction.

[MrBoy1967]

Blake-Tried your link & got an error message-"[EDIE logo]

Sorry an error has occured

An error occured whilst attempting to display the page you requested. If you wish to send full details of the error to the server administrator please click the send button. If you include your email address we will contact you as soon as the error is fixed." Could you please check & post again-I’d like to read the post.

I understand the carbon cycle, and I do read a fair bit of biology myself, but, of course, one cannot read everything that comes down the pipe. I know that there are dueling sources and authorities. None of what I have read in places like Nature, Scientific American, my textbooks, et. alia, have described the Amazon and other rain forests as carbon sources.

Similarly, the sources in my O&G classwork point towards wildly differing conclusions on when hydrocarbon-based technologies will be running on empty. The conservative estimates point to the middle of this century, while the optimists point far beyond- my prof. thinks 75-100 years. His justification is that it is bad energy policy to rely on the unproven. While new tech has opened up certain fields to additional production, such production is still fractions of former production. Additionally, many of the known untapped resources are hard to reach oceanic fields or in difficult terrain or under ecologically sensitive areas. Some of the fields that are assumed to exist are supposed to be there because they are below “currently producing strata” they may or may not actually be there. And even if they are there, you still have to hit them.

Then there is the question of the cleanliness of the source. The hydrocarbons coming out of the Middle East are sought after for 2 reasons- they produce in great quantities and their product is of high quality requiring very minimal refining. By contrast, a good Texas well produces in its lifetime the amount of oil a Saudi well might produce in a month, and the oil requires a great deal of refinement. Some of the known oil and coal fields that have not been touched have been left alone because their products have high sulphur contents. It is neither economical nor environmentally sound at this time to produce from these sources, yet they are added into the calculations of hydrocarbon exhaustion.

Re: my style. You have a knack for attacking the form of the query or statement without addressing the susbstance. I asked my question as I did because your rhetorical style is irritating and flip, and therefore responded in kind. Your rudeness to others inspired me.

[Roger_Mexico]

Here is Blake’s link:

www.edie.net/news/Archive/5505.cfm

Here is a better explanation. During El Nino periods, the Amazon basin experiences drought and the stress leads to it switching from a carbon sink to a carbon source:

http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/citizen201298.html

[Askance]

B.E.C.A.U.S.E. T.H.A.T. I.S. W.H.A.T. T.H.E P.E.E.R. R.E.V.I.E.W.E.D. S.C.I.E.N.C.E. T.E.L.L.S. U.S.

“A study of long term data from the Amazon rainforest has put into question the use of the region as a carbon sink under the Kyoto Protocol, with the forests even acting as a carbon source during some periods.”

“has put into question” hardly counts as “what reviewed science tells us”, now does it?

I note that, like astrologers and other pseudoscientists, you support the concept of reviewed science when convenient for your pre-decided position (Amazon = carbon sink) but not when not convenient (Lomberg = incorrect).

[Blake]

None of what I have read in places like Nature, Scientific American, my textbooks, et. alia, have described the Amazon and other rain forests as carbon sources.

Could you provide some of these references. I have never seen anyone suggest it is a sink. I haven a lot of work showing fluctuations, but none suggesting a long term net carbon sink. The trouble is that no plausible mechanism for such a process exists AFAIK. CO2 fertilisation is unlikely to be effective at current increases amongst tropical tre species for numerous reasons.

As for the hydrocarbon issue, I will gladly take you up on it in the oil thread in GD, where I don’t have to post all the links dispelling your beliefs.

I will ignore your ad hominem.

[Roger_Mexico]

All plants are carbon sources when the are respiring more than they are photosynthesizing, e.g., at night, in the winter, and during periods of physiological stress. This is not an earth-shaking concept. Besides, the Amazon basin is not a large source or sink of carbon compared to the oceans. I really like the rainforest, but destroying all the rainforest in the world will not have much effect on the carbon cycle.

[Blake]

The amount of CO2 stored as biomass in the world’s rainforests is pretty large. The Greenhouse implications of destroying it all is fairly dramatic.

Whether you include this as part of the carbon cycle is another matter, but I do.

[Roger_Mexico]

I guess Cecil is not going to comment on his glaring scientific blunder.

[Blake]

What “glaring scientific blunder” would this be? The soil erosion figures are dubious, but I can’t see any glaring blunder.

[MrBoy1967]

Roger- thank you for the reposted link. That’s a pretty well done site-informative even. Now, I ask you to consider your statement about plants being a carbon source due to stress. What have been the major stressors due on the Amazon during the past 70 years? Logging, the fires used to clear land for farms (which add to the problem by burning the wood as well), and other man made stressors.

Something else to consider-the site mentioned that the Amazon has been a carbon source during El Nino seasons. Fine. One thing it didn’t mention is that we are living in an era in which the climate’s El Nino/La Nina cycle is out of whack. On CNN few years ago, Al Gore (using EPA data) pointed out that over the past 50 years and unlike any other time on record, El Nino seasons are occurring much more often than they used to, and that they are no longer being balanced out by La Nina’s in the climactic cycle. Where once they were basically paired, Ninos are occurring 4 times more often than Ninas.

[Chronos]

On CNN few years ago, Al Gore (using EPA data) pointed out that over the past 50 years and unlike any other time on record, El Nino seasons are occurring much more often than they used to, and that they are no longer being balanced out by La Nina’s in the climactic cycle.

This even though we’ve only had the technology to reliably detect El Ninos for the past decade or so? And even if they are more common now than they used to be, what’s the significance of that?

[Arnold_Winkelried]

I will remind posters that personal insults are not allowed in this forum, and ask all of you to remain polite in your discussion.

[MrBoy1967]

Climatologists use archived data and computer models to determine whether past years are El Nino or La Nina or normal years.

The data cited by Gore didn’t just indicate that El Nino’s were more common than in the past, but that they were also no longer associated with La Ninas. They have gone from a nearly 1-1 correlation to a 4-1 or worse. This linked cycle goes back as far as the climatologists can detect, except in the past century. And most of the unlinked El Ninos are in the past 30 years. The main change in the world over that time period has been industrialization, and all its associated evils.

For the record-I’m no luddite. I like my A/C, and my AC/DC. But I (obviously) feel we’re headed down the same road as the Easter Islanders. We’re using up our resources at a rate that may kill us off…unless we act now to prevent it.

[BrainGlutton]

Posted by Blake:

quote:

And be assured we will run out of fossil fuel some time.

Almost certainly not. As prices increase it will become more economical to utilise alternative energy sources and synthetic hydrocarbons. There is no sensible reason why we will ever use up the last fossil fuel on the planet.
quote:

For oil current projections are between 20 and 50 years, coal some hundreds.

No they aren’t. For oil current projection are in the range of 100 years at current usage rates, recovery technology and economic value. Actual resource quantity runs in the range of tens of thousands of years of supply at current usage rates.
Nobody at all suggests that the world will run out of oil within 20 years.

Actually, Blake, some people who are in a position to know do suggest something along those lines. The following is from the website of James Howard Kunstler; you can link to it at http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary7.html.

June 3, 2003
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil threw a major conference last week in Paris. The org is lead by Colin Campbell, retired chief geologist for Shell Oil, and the board members include an impressive roster of geologists who have worked both for Big Oil and acadamia, for instance, Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton, retired exploration manager of France’s giant Total company Jean Laherrere, Pierre-Rene Bauquis, VP of the French Energy Institute (IFP), and others like Matthew Simmons, the Houston-based investment banker specializing in energy companies.
The message emerging from the meeting is that the world may have already entered the unchartered territory of global oil depletion – that is, the downside of “Hubbert’s Curve,” the bell graph first used by Shell Oil geologist M. King Hubbert in 1956 to describe the destiny of the world’s oil supplies. Here are some of the salient points presented (thanks to Michael C. Ruppert reporting for the Fromthewilderness.com).

– Deffeyes repeated a claim he made in April that, based on production figures for the past three years, the world seems to have passed peak oil production in 2000.

– The once-hoped-for Caspian Sea bonanza has proved to be a major bust. British Petroleum and Exxon/Mobil have already pulled out.

– Reserve figures have been uniformly overstated for decades by both major oil companies and national governments – for tax advantages in the case of US companies and to evade export quota regulations in the case of OPEC members. Saudi Arabia’s reserves may be substantially lower than the 250 billion barrels claimed, and in fact Saudi Arabia may be producing now at 100 percent capacity, meaning they may now be passing peak.

– Oliver Appert, Chairman of the IFP, declared there are no more major significant reserves to be discovered and that the world oil depletion rate is between five and ten per cent per year, requiring 60 million barrels a day in new production to meet demand.

– Auto sales in China jumped 50 percent in 2002 alone.

– Matthew Simmons told the group that the US natural gas supply is near a crisis point. By 2001, with record drilling, there was no increase in supply, and by 2003 production was in serious decline. New Texas gas wells, he said, are in decline an average of 83 percent one year after drilling. “The world has no Plan B,” he said.

–Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik told the group that deep water drilling would not add significantly to the world’s oil reserve, that it did not make sense economically, and ultimately could only produce five billion barrels – equal to a 60-day world demand at current levels. Van Mourik also made the interesting observation that, “it may not be profitable to slow decline.”

– All speakers addressing the issue stated that no combination of alternative energy sources can replace hydrocarbons, and none even dreamed of will be implemented in time to avert major disruptions in industrial civilization.

– Dr. Jorg Wind, representing auto giant Daimler / Chrysler told the conference that his company did not view hydrogen as a viable alternative to petroleum-based engines. He stated that fuel cell vehicles would never amount to significant market share. Hydrogen was ruled out as a solution because of intensive costs of production, inherent energy inefficiencies, lack of infrastructure, and practical difficulties such as the extreme cost and difficulty of storage. The Daimler / Chrysler representative dismissed ethanol out of hand as “not energy efficient.”

– Pierre-Rene Bauquis remarked that commercial production of hydrogen is two to five times the cost of fossil fuels used to produce it.

– Other French presenters stated that ethanol used in France enjoyed a 300 percent government subsidy.

– Physics Professor Kjell Aleklett told the conference that exploiting the Canadian Tar Sands would be a financial and economic disaster, insofar as the amount of natural gas needed to create steam to process the mined sands, as well as the massive amounts of water used and polluted in the process.

– Chris Skrebowski of the UK’s Institute of Petroleum noted that by 2007 Britain will be in its second year of natural gas imports and its first year of oil imports, having severely depleted its North Sea reserves by that time.

Go ahead and draw some conclusions.