25 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.