4 ms·

So... Wouldn't burning wood meet the headline?

phkahler 9y ago
Yeah, and since coal is dead biomass one would think we can burn that too. I suppose it's possible that billions of years of moss growing on rocks has produced a lot of that biomass, and that it was never all in play at once. But people generally get pissed and defensive when I mention the coal thing. I've never had anyone even attempt to refute the idea that coal is carbon-neutral in scientific manner. That's what makes it so much fun to say.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  > I've never had anyone even attempt to refute the idea that coal is carbon-neutral in scientific manner. Except maybe nuclear, no source of energy creates new carbon. The question, vis-a-vis carbon neutrality, is "over relevant time scales, does this leave more carbon in the atmosphere (as opposed to sequestered in oil, coal, trees, whatever)?" If you create coal and then burn it, that's carbon neutral (modulo whatever you produced creating the coal). If you dig ancient coal out of the ground and burn it, that's not carbon neutral.
  - phkahler 9y ago
    >> If you create coal and then burn it, that's carbon neutral Right, there was no coal when the earth formed. It's all former biomass and was part of the biosphere. So we need to burn it to actually be carbon neutral. I did offer a refutation of this...
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      You are (willfully?) ignoring my point about time-scale, which your offered refutation doesn't address. Yes, of course the coal hasn't existed forever, and before that the carbon was presumably part of the atmosphere. But that wasn't an atmosphere ever breathed by Homo Sapiens. We don't want to make sure the atmosphere matches that at earth's creation (it wasn't always even significantly oxygenated! and if we want to put back all the carbon that includes killing all life). We want to be sure our activity doesn't leave us with significant negative consequences.
      - phkahler 9y ago
        My refutation was that the carbon may have been part of the rocks which the mosses and lichens may have gotten some use of. And of course that would be over an enormous amount of time, in which case burning the coal too fast would bring up more at one time than has ever been around. I don't recall what they say the primordial atmosphere was like, and I don't advocate going back to that. I do suggest we look back prior to the ice age (periodic glaciations 10-15Myr) and not worry if we replicate those conditions - there was apparently a lot more life on earth back then, and plants at higher latitude.
        hedora 9y ago
        The most recent ice age (I think it was the most recent; it was fairly recent) was brought on by runaway warming of the atmosphere by CO2. This led to disruption of ocean currents, which caused glaciation at low latitudes. It took 50-100 years for the glaciers to form. Global warming caused measurable disruption of the same ocean currents in 2016 and 2017. So, replicating pre-ice age conditions, as you suggest we should, could easily lead to the collapse of most European states, and at least the northern half of the US.
    - adrianN 9y ago
      If you want to go back to the climate Earth had before the carboniferous era, then sure, burn all the coal. However, I'd suggest doing it over a period of a couple million years to give the biosphere time to adapt back to global rainforests.
- throwaway76543 9y ago
  The term "carbon neutral" refers to the amount of carbon active in the ecosystem. It excludes sequestered carbon in underground deposits (coal, oil). If the term "carbon neutral" referred to all carbon on earth, then yes, burning coal would be carbon neutral. But that isn't what the term means. Your idea is refuted by definition, not by science.
  - phkahler 9y ago
    Coal used to be carbon active in the biosphere. Oil did not - at least going by a commonly accepted theory of oil forming deep in the earth. The question remains - if coal was sequestered, what were things like prior to the sequestration? The same holds for the methane that's starting to be released as the permafrost in the arctic thaws. That used to be active in the biosphere, so why should it be a problem?
    - Zalastax 9y ago
      We don't want to go back to those levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Doing so would completely disrupt every ecosystem in the world. As pointed out already, carbon neutral refers to a time scale that is in the order of at most a few decades. Anything longer than that would have severe ecological effects.
    - patmorgan23 9y ago
      That's not a great argument the earth used to be ball of magma with no solid surface why should it be a problem if we return to that?
    - sgt101 9y ago
      I'll try - just from my general knowledge; no claim of authority! 1) Coal; coal is a case of carbon sequestration. Coal was largely formed in the Carboniferous period, at this point plants had evolved to form wood which uses lignin in its structure. This allowed forests to form, but until the end of the Carboniferous fungi that could degrade and decay lignin were no widespread. This led to a bloom of oxygen in the atmosphere and a crash in carbon dioxide. The earth cooled and there was a mass extinction. Lignin decaying fungi then became widespread releasing the non sequestered carbon (that which hadn't formed into deep deposits of coal) from the lignin. In the carboniferous period the carbon from many 100's of millions of years of volcanic activity was sequestered by plants in coal deposits, since then the ecosystem has faced the need to absorb a smaller amount of carbon from just 300 m years of the volcanic history of the earth. This has resulted in the chemical balance of the atmosphere and oceans we have today, including the way that they interact with geology. 2) Methane in permafrost; I think that this is a much smaller amount of carbon, but the problem is that the iceage processes that have formed these deposits have resulted in a store of methane, rather than CO2, and methane is a very strong greenhouse gas. Injecting a large amount of methane suddenly could lead to a sharp period of warming. Before coal formed the chemistry of earths oceans and atmosphere was different; there was sulphur in the water column of the oceans. Carbon dioxide was ~8 times the current level. The world was 6' C warmer, and at that time Sol was ~5% dimmer. Sea level was ~170m higher than now, and the seas would have been very acid - due to the carbonic ions. Going back to a world like that wouldn't be a problem, for some bacteria, for animals with shells or bones, well - not so good. In fact, there probably wouldn't be any because the acid in the ecosystem would prevent calcification - rubber for bones! Expect worms, leeches, jellyfish and insects to profit. This time round there will be no carboniferous swamps - fungi have the trick of decaying wood now, so the time of large animals on earth will be done, back to the Precambrian, but hotter, polluted (for a million years at least) and radioactive (for a bit longer). The permafrost past/future is probably more benign; 70 -100m of sea level rise, some acidification - but nothing like enough for the end of skeletons. I think it would likely see a massive reduction of human population, but I doubt that humans or human technology would disappear.

Yeah, and since coal is dead biomass one would think we can burn that too. I suppose it's possible that billions of years of moss growing on rocks has produced a lot of that biomass, and that it was never all in play at once. But people generally get pissed and defensive when I mention the coal thing. I've never had anyone even attempt to refute the idea that coal is carbon-neutral in scientific manner. That's what makes it so much fun to say.

dllthomas 9y ago
> I've never had anyone even attempt to refute the idea that coal is carbon-neutral in scientific manner. Except maybe nuclear, no source of energy creates new carbon. The question, vis-a-vis carbon neutrality, is "over relevant time scales, does this leave more carbon in the atmosphere (as opposed to sequestered in oil, coal, trees, whatever)?" If you create coal and then burn it, that's carbon neutral (modulo whatever you produced creating the coal). If you dig ancient coal out of the ground and burn it, that's not carbon neutral.
- phkahler 9y ago
  >> If you create coal and then burn it, that's carbon neutral Right, there was no coal when the earth formed. It's all former biomass and was part of the biosphere. So we need to burn it to actually be carbon neutral. I did offer a refutation of this...
  - dllthomas 9y ago
    You are (willfully?) ignoring my point about time-scale, which your offered refutation doesn't address. Yes, of course the coal hasn't existed forever, and before that the carbon was presumably part of the atmosphere. But that wasn't an atmosphere ever breathed by Homo Sapiens. We don't want to make sure the atmosphere matches that at earth's creation (it wasn't always even significantly oxygenated! and if we want to put back all the carbon that includes killing all life). We want to be sure our activity doesn't leave us with significant negative consequences.
    - phkahler 9y ago
      My refutation was that the carbon may have been part of the rocks which the mosses and lichens may have gotten some use of. And of course that would be over an enormous amount of time, in which case burning the coal too fast would bring up more at one time than has ever been around. I don't recall what they say the primordial atmosphere was like, and I don't advocate going back to that. I do suggest we look back prior to the ice age (periodic glaciations 10-15Myr) and not worry if we replicate those conditions - there was apparently a lot more life on earth back then, and plants at higher latitude.
      - hedora 9y ago
        The most recent ice age (I think it was the most recent; it was fairly recent) was brought on by runaway warming of the atmosphere by CO2. This led to disruption of ocean currents, which caused glaciation at low latitudes. It took 50-100 years for the glaciers to form. Global warming caused measurable disruption of the same ocean currents in 2016 and 2017. So, replicating pre-ice age conditions, as you suggest we should, could easily lead to the collapse of most European states, and at least the northern half of the US.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    If you want to go back to the climate Earth had before the carboniferous era, then sure, burn all the coal. However, I'd suggest doing it over a period of a couple million years to give the biosphere time to adapt back to global rainforests.
throwaway76543 9y ago
The term "carbon neutral" refers to the amount of carbon active in the ecosystem. It excludes sequestered carbon in underground deposits (coal, oil). If the term "carbon neutral" referred to all carbon on earth, then yes, burning coal would be carbon neutral. But that isn't what the term means. Your idea is refuted by definition, not by science.
- phkahler 9y ago
  Coal used to be carbon active in the biosphere. Oil did not - at least going by a commonly accepted theory of oil forming deep in the earth. The question remains - if coal was sequestered, what were things like prior to the sequestration? The same holds for the methane that's starting to be released as the permafrost in the arctic thaws. That used to be active in the biosphere, so why should it be a problem?
  - Zalastax 9y ago
    We don't want to go back to those levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Doing so would completely disrupt every ecosystem in the world. As pointed out already, carbon neutral refers to a time scale that is in the order of at most a few decades. Anything longer than that would have severe ecological effects.
  - patmorgan23 9y ago
    That's not a great argument the earth used to be ball of magma with no solid surface why should it be a problem if we return to that?
  - sgt101 9y ago
    I'll try - just from my general knowledge; no claim of authority! 1) Coal; coal is a case of carbon sequestration. Coal was largely formed in the Carboniferous period, at this point plants had evolved to form wood which uses lignin in its structure. This allowed forests to form, but until the end of the Carboniferous fungi that could degrade and decay lignin were no widespread. This led to a bloom of oxygen in the atmosphere and a crash in carbon dioxide. The earth cooled and there was a mass extinction. Lignin decaying fungi then became widespread releasing the non sequestered carbon (that which hadn't formed into deep deposits of coal) from the lignin. In the carboniferous period the carbon from many 100's of millions of years of volcanic activity was sequestered by plants in coal deposits, since then the ecosystem has faced the need to absorb a smaller amount of carbon from just 300 m years of the volcanic history of the earth. This has resulted in the chemical balance of the atmosphere and oceans we have today, including the way that they interact with geology. 2) Methane in permafrost; I think that this is a much smaller amount of carbon, but the problem is that the iceage processes that have formed these deposits have resulted in a store of methane, rather than CO2, and methane is a very strong greenhouse gas. Injecting a large amount of methane suddenly could lead to a sharp period of warming. Before coal formed the chemistry of earths oceans and atmosphere was different; there was sulphur in the water column of the oceans. Carbon dioxide was ~8 times the current level. The world was 6' C warmer, and at that time Sol was ~5% dimmer. Sea level was ~170m higher than now, and the seas would have been very acid - due to the carbonic ions. Going back to a world like that wouldn't be a problem, for some bacteria, for animals with shells or bones, well - not so good. In fact, there probably wouldn't be any because the acid in the ecosystem would prevent calcification - rubber for bones! Expect worms, leeches, jellyfish and insects to profit. This time round there will be no carboniferous swamps - fungi have the trick of decaying wood now, so the time of large animals on earth will be done, back to the Precambrian, but hotter, polluted (for a million years at least) and radioactive (for a bit longer). The permafrost past/future is probably more benign; 70 -100m of sea level rise, some acidification - but nothing like enough for the end of skeletons. I think it would likely see a massive reduction of human population, but I doubt that humans or human technology would disappear.